From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  1 00:43:11 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:43:11 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: sirius's family (was: Sirius a "pureblood"?
Message-ID: <F163VJWrGW6Ex3Akwts00009c2d@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37238

>--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at m...> wrote:
> > This is an interesting question about the nature of Sirius' family:
> > What sort of family, Wizard or Muggle, would allow their son to go
> > to prison without a trial??

There could be many reasons for the above question (from Dave).


*>Maybe they also believed him guilty and were deeply ASHAMED of being
 >related to him. (from Catlady_de_los_angeles)
* Maybe they're dead (from someone else...please shoot me for
  forgetting your name).
* Maybe they tried to get him a trial, believing he was innocent, but
  they were refused.

Although I would say that the most likely is either that they're dead or 
believe that he's guilty, because he couldn't go to them for help after he 
was out of Azkaban. Or maybe he thought that they thought he was guilty. 
I'll shut up, I'm confusing myself.

Liz

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Mon Apr  1 03:10:14 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 03:10:14 -0000
Subject: Magic calorie-burning
In-Reply-To: <a885qs+g4n0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a88j2m+gtlm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37240

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ritadear2" <ritadarling at i...> wrote:
> Marina wrote:
> 
> "Now, just thinking about it logically, it seems to me that if you 
> wave a wand, say a couple of words, and out pops a fireball (or a 
> bunch of roses, or a French poodle) -- well, the energy has to 
> come from somewhere, doesn't it? And the most obvious 
> answer is that it comes from inside the wizard who's doing the 
> spell. So I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that 
> calories are burned in the process."
> 
> True, but I guess I was thinking more along the lines of general 
> muscle mass.  I imagine the kids at Hogwarts do get a bit of 
> strength and stamina training while carrying heavy books 
> through the corridors and up and down stairs 

I guess we do have to assume that.  Hogwarts does seem to have an 
awful lot of stairs and no elevatiors.  Plus, chasing after Blast-
tailed skrewts and such in Hagrid's class is probably pretty good 
cross-training too. :-)

In any case, when I originally had my "magic burns calories" idea, I 
wasn't thinking of wizard weight problems at all; I was thinking 
about the First Law of Thermodynamics: energy can be converted from 
one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.  It may 
be just the engineering geek in me coming to the surface, but I like 
to think that magic doesn't just ignore the laws of physics -- it 
has to work within them, but using totally different methods and 
principles than science does.  So to cast a spell, potential energy 
must be converted to kinetic/magical energy, and since there's no 
evidence that wizards draw potential energy from an external source, 
I assume it must come from the spell-caster him/herself.

> And, we need to add Crabbe and Goyle to the overweight list, 
> don't we?

I think Crabbe and Goyle are supposed to be big and muscly rather 
than fat.  Good thug material. :-)

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net  Mon Apr  1 01:40:04 2002
From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:40:04 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius and Hogwarts food
In-Reply-To: <1017621795.3874.89761.m3@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020331203914.00a699f0@mail.fantasysales.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37241

~~~~~Liz wrote~~~~~

I have figured Sirius to be muggle-born or half-blood, simply because of the
motorcycle that he enchanted to fly. Or perhaps Lily introduced it to him.~~~~~

Wouldn't just be the utmost high if JKR wrote, after the 7th book, another 
book telling the story of James, Lily, Snape, Sirius, Lupin and Peter 
during their childhoods and their Hogwarts years????

~~~~~Marina wrote~~~~~

I would expect them to be more
overweight on the average. Especially considering all the vast
quantities of rich food that the Hogwarts house-elves dish out.~~~~~

Yes, but, if one can accept that all this food is magically prepared by 
house elves and magically transported, through a solid stone floor and a 
solid wood table, then couldn't one also accept that this food has also 
been altered magically to be extremely tasty yet low in calories and fat??? 
(Oh God, I'd love to have a few of those house elves in MY house!!!!!!!!!!!!)


---
Kendra Grant-Bingham
~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~
"Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count."



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From pennylin at swbell.net  Mon Apr  1 03:43:14 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:43:14 -0600
Subject: Official Discussion Questions for the next Few Months: Question #1
Message-ID: <001601c1d92f$5acf2620$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37242

Hi everyone --

Last November, I reviewed a new secondary source on the HP novels by Dr. Philip Nel, an English professor at Kansas State University (see Message 30390).  This is a wonderful resource for HP fans, and I highly recommend it to your reading.  

 

Dr. Nel included a dozen or so discussion questions at the end of this book, and the Moderators have decided to have "official" discussions of one of these questions each week.  We will not be going exactly in the order set out in Dr. Nel's book but according to the preferences of the Moderator or Elf who is leading the discussion for that particular question.  Hence, this week we will be discussing Question #7 in Dr. Nel's book as that's the one I chose to introduce to the group.  The questions cover a wide range of topics, and I've uploaded a document with those questions to the Files area for those of you who want to get an advance feel for the questions:

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Discussion%20Summaries/DISCUSSION%20QUESTIONS%20FROM%20PHILIP%20NEL.htm

 

[Note the above link may need to be reconstructed if it breaks over a line]

 

Since some of the questions have been covered extensively or at least to some extent in this group, the Moderator or Elf leading the discussion will introduce Dr. Nel's question as written, follow it with additional commentary & then refer readers to selected past messages in the Message Archives to stimulate further discussion.

 

Dr. Nel is a member of our group, btw.  He is also teaching a literature class on HP this semester at Kansas State (oh to be so lucky as to get college credit for HP!).  I understand that some of his students have joined the list as well.  Welcome!

 

So, onward to Question #7:

 

Dr. Philip Nel writes:

 

***********************************

 

In GoF, Ron remarks, 'Percy loves rules,' and he wonders whether his brother would send a family member to Azkaban if it would advance his career (GoF, pg 463).  Reflect on the role of bureaucracy in the novels.  Does his tendency to side with bureaucracy make Percy susceptible to the same sorts of errors made by Cornelius Fudge and Barty Crouch, Sr., errors that ultimately (if unintentionally) help Lord Voldemort?  Might we expect him - albeit unwillingly - to aid Voldemort by following the letter of the law instead of its spirit?  Will he side with Crouch or with his family?

 

 

COMMENTARY & FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS:

 

As you'll notice from the brief parenthetical descriptions of past messages on this topic below, I'm a huge Percy fan.   I should also point out the meaning of the acronym P.I.N.E., which was formed by Trina and I at some point last year.  Successor to Percy Lovers Unite!, P.I.N.E. stands for Percy Is Not Evil.  

 

I do think Percy is susceptible to manipulation by the followers of Lord Voldemort; however, I don't think he's the only individual in the series susceptible to this sort of manipulation.  Percy's ambition is certainly highlighted throughout the series (we see him avidly reading "Prefects who Gained Power" at one point); however, by the time we've read through the end of GoF, we know that Percy is not the only Weasley with strong ambitions to better himself.  Fred & George's business plans and Ron's hatred of being poor certainly indicate that these characters all harbor growing ambitious goals.   A quick perusal of Peg Kerr's essay on "Ambition" in the HP series indicates that we've identified a fair number of other characters who are ambitious in one form or another (see Message # 1209).

 

Percy is by no means the only character who could unwittingly aid Lord Voldemort IMO.  As we've discussed before, there's hardly a single character who doesn't have some weakness that could be twisted to the uses of Voldemort & his DE followers.  So, is Percy's ambition highlighted more or about the same as some of the flaws of the other characters?  If you believe it's been stressed even slightly more, is this in your judgment a red flag or a red herring?  In other words, are we the readers meant to believe that it would be Percy who would be an unwitting pawn of the Dark Side or is Rowling perhaps misdirecting us?  Are Ron's statements about Percy and his familial relationships perhaps too heavy-handed?  Hermione seems to think so.  What do you think of Hermione's judgment in this matter?   

 

Percy certainly adheres to the "rules" in this series.  But, under what circumstances has he or would he abandon the rules in favor of some greater good?  I note that when Ron seemed to be in some danger at the end of the 2nd Task in GoF, Percy abandoned all dignity that went with his position as a "judge," presumably let his emotions override his almost certain objective knowledge that Dumbledore wouldn't endanger student lives and rushed straight into the Lake, looking "paler than usual."  I think this signals that when personal relationships are at stake in a threatening situation, Percy is willing to abandon the rules.      

 

Has Percy learned his lesson about blind adherence to rules?  He surely knows by the beginning of the action in OoP that his own failure to ask questions contributed to the demise of Crouch, Sr. and the eventual success of the plot to resurrect Lord Voldemort.  Some of us have noted that Percy was simply an over-eager young man in his first job in GoF.  IMO, Percy would be more on his guard from here on out.  

 

On the other hand, it's clear that Fudge is blinded to reality.  He will certainly make the official pronouncement at the MoM that all this business about Lord Voldemort returning is balderdash.  It seems reasonably apparent that Arthur Weasley will break from the MoM over this issue.  Will Percy be willing to listen to his family members or will his ambitions even temporarily override familial loyalties and trust?  Ron mentioned at one point that Percy wants to eventually become the Minister of Magic.  If a permanent career within the MoM is his stated goal, how likely is it that he will easily make the decision to follow his family to Dumbledore's side?  

 

Speaking of Dumbledore, it's obvious that Percy idolizes the Hogwarts Headmaster.  How will Percy decide between following his idol and his family members and following his life-long goal of a MoM career?  This obviously sets up a fairly strong conflict for Percy Weasley.  Do you accordingly see Percy becoming amore important character overall in one or more of the next HP books?  Is he really the same type of person as Crouch or Fudge?  How would you distinguish Percy from these characters?  

 

PAST DISCUSSIONS:

 

On Percy's AMBITION, see the following messages:

 

1209 (Peg Kerr's "Ambition" essay) 

15007 (Demelza: Percy will blindly follow rules to reach his ambitions) 

20213 (Penny: Percy is no more ambitious than the Twins or Ron) 

25027 (Amber: ambition isn't always "evil")

36579 (Amber: Why Percy is in Gryffindor rather than Slytherin)

 

On Percy's POTENTIAL TO REMAIN BLIND TO THE DANGER, see:

 

2998 (Peg Kerr's "Sloth" Deadly Sin essay)

9156 (Demelza: Percy & the Rules)

15007 (Demelza: Percy will blindly follow the rules)

15114 (Demelza)

16286 (Demelza)

17393 (Mags: he may not be adequately suspicious of orders)

21212 (Susanna: Percy may be a parallel to the common German soldiers in WWII who followed orders to his detriment)

27584 (Liz: Percy won't question the rules enough)

30440 (Jamie: the MoM is blind to the current dangers, Percy included in this)

 

On Percy's LOYALTY & GOOD TRAITS, see:

 

8733 (Charmain)

8764 (Trina: general P.I.N.E. post)

15043 (Penny: Percy is just over-eager in his first job)

15284 (Penny: Percy has already learned his lesson with Crouch & will be on guard)

16164 (Morag: Percy is gullible but human)

16248 (Penny: Percy's heart is in the right place)

16619 (Magda: Percy was just over-zealous in his first job)

17456 (Morag: Percy's loyalty is both his weakness & his strength)

24994 (Penny: Percy & P.I.N.E.)

25455 (Catherine: refutes Ron's comparison of Percy with Tom Riddle)

26544 (Catherine: Percy's heart is in the right place)

27259 (Amber: P.I.N.E.)

30380 (Amber: P.I.N.E.)

30453 (Penny: P.I.N.E.)

31780 (Amber: Percy and loyalty)

35060 (Debbie: Percy won't "crack")

35837 (Eileen: catalogues "positive Percy moments")

35896 (Eileen: caricature of Percy is masking deeper issues that will be revealed later)

 

On PERCY & OOP generally, see:

 

20037 (Milz: really intriguing theory under which Percy ends up in Azkaban for Crouch's murder)

 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From petrukio at enteract.com  Mon Apr  1 03:42:49 2002
From: petrukio at enteract.com (Joel N. Fischoff)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:42:49 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Looks like we've been hacked. :)
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020331203914.00a699f0@mail.fantasysales.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203312142001.91013-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37243

On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Kendra Grant-Bingham wrote:
>Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re: [HPforGrownups] Sirius and Hogwarts food

Unless someone has a really strange sense of humor, that is...

Joel




From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  1 03:47:43 2002
From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Looks like we've been hacked. :)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203312142001.91013-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
Message-ID: <20020401034743.86087.qmail@web13505.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37244


--- "Joel N. Fischoff" <petrukio at enteract.com> wrote:
> Unless someone has a really strange sense of humor,
> that is...

> Joel
 

Yeah, can anyone explain the [BanHarryPotterNow!]
prefixes?

Lizgiz 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
http://greetings.yahoo.com/



From porphyria at mindspring.com  Mon Apr  1 06:52:42 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:52:42 -0800
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Looks like we've been hacked. :)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203312142001.91013-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
Message-ID: <1039D401-453D-11D6-AD58-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37245

I would suggest noticing the date today (well, GMT at least). :-)

On Sunday, March 31, 2002, at 07:42 PM, Joel N. Fischoff wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Kendra Grant-Bingham wrote:
> >Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re: [HPforGrownups] Sirius and Hogwarts 
> food
>
> Unless someone has a really strange sense of humor, that is...
>
> Joel
>
>

>
>
> Ban Evil Harry Potter NOW! Do it for your kids, before their innocent 
> minds are warped FOREVER!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!11!!!
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From naraku at comcast.net  Mon Apr  1 04:12:45 2002
From: naraku at comcast.net (Naraku)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:12:45 -0500
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Looks like we've been hacked. :)
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203312142001.91013-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
Message-ID: <005301c1d933$7a0d5c60$e35d2d44@CG198071A>

No: HPFGUIDX 37246

From: "Joel N. Fischoff" <petrukio at enteract.com>
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Kendra Grant-Bingham wrote:
> >Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re: [HPforGrownups] Sirius and Hogwarts
food
>
> Unless someone has a really strange sense of humor, that is...

Yep- check out the group's homepage.  The little demonic Daniel Radcliffe is
really pretty adorable.

Happy April Fool's, I guess.

Paige (delurking briefly to procrastinate a bit more)




From elfundeb at aol.com  Mon Apr  1 04:13:46 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:13:46 EST
Subject: Arthur Weasley, With Imperius Curse 
Message-ID: <33.24ea2e24.29d9387a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37247

Elkins graciously responded, in dead earnest, to my tongue-in-cheek request 
for a sinister Weasley backstory to counter my "straightforward" Weasleys:
> 
> I don't know if this is quite what you
> hoped for -- it's not really so much sinister as it is sad -- but 
> would you care for a bite of Arthur Weasley With Imperius Curse?
> They may be only half-baked, but I did make them myself, and 
> 

[Debbie agreeably settles in armchair, hoping canon tastes like chocolate, 
then snips and eats excellent and highly believable backstory]
> 
> And finally, in defense of my Imperio'd Arthur Weasley theory, I 
> would point out that Ron seems to find fighting off the Imperius 
> Curse unusually difficult.  Nowhere else in canon is Ron depicted as 
> a poor student.  He does have some difficulties in CoS, but only 
> because of his broken wand; he doesn't take Divination at all 
> seriously, but then, neither do any of the other male Gryffindor 
> students.  Ordinarily, Ron is canonically depicted as a perfectly 
> average student.  So why the trouble with the Imperius Curse?  He's 
> not a weak-willed person at all, really.
> 
> Well, could it be a family trait?  Riddle's diary did quite the job on
> 

I stop here only to mention that Weakness Against Imperio, rather than being 
a family trait, appears to be endemic.  As you point out, Hagrid says that 
when Voldemort fell a lot of people "came outta kinda trances."  Moody/Crouch 
tells the class that a lot of witches and wizards were being controlled by 
Imperius.  And when he tests the class's ability to resist, "not one of them 
seemed to be able to fight off the curse, and each of them recovered only 
when Moody had removed it."  I've suggested before, back when we were 
discussing who might Crack, that Ron was a likely candidate for Imperio.  
Like father, like son, like half the wizarding world . . . .

[more snipping and eating canon support, which indeed tastes like chocolate.  
Dark chocolate.]
       
> think? 
>  Rather a nasty secret.  Rather an ugly secret.  A Deep Dark 
> secret.  A Skeleton In the Weasley Family Closet sort of secret.
> 
> So I'm hoping that it's true.  Because not only do I think that the 
> it would be interesting for the Weasleys to have one of those; I also
> think that the Weasleys *act* as if they have one of those.  There's
> something festering away somewhere in that family dynamic, and I 
> don't think that it's just a matter of financial stress.  I think 
> that there's something swept under the carpet somewhere in that 
> household.  

Having swallowed this story completely, I can only comment (as I lick up the 
last bit of tasty canon) that I don't think it's sinister and I don't think 
Arthur With Imperius Curse is at all inconsistent with my "straightforward" 
Weasley family.  Moody/Crouch and Hagrid both indicate that a lot of witches 
and wizards suffered from Imperio, so Arthur is not alone.  That the Weasleys 
would have hidden the painful memories under a thick rug while they picked up 
their everyday lives would not surprise me.  It's a very common response.  
>From what we've seen of the wizarding world, that seems to be what most 
people, including Fudge himself,  did, as reflected in the mania, shared by 
the Weasley family, about saying "You-Know-Who" as though the name Voldemort 
itself would bring all the skeletons tumbling out of the closets (Ron doesn't 
know the family history, but his family has conditioned him to be terrorized 
at the sound of Voldemort's name and at one point he practically yells at 
Harry not to say it).  At least the Weasleys, when faced with a new threat at 
the end of GoF, react by immediately preparing to do whatever is necessary to 
fight it, which I see as a sign that they are at least prepared to face the 
past (whether it be Imperio, missing children, the Dark Mark above the Burrow 
or all of the above) and prevent it from happening again.  

Finally, while I don't see the Imperius Curse by itself, or any of the other 
possibilities mentioned above, as falling into the category of Arthur being 
shockingly different than he appears to be, which I view as the prime kind of 
dirty secret whose discovery would be very difficult to deal with (it's in my 
comments on the Still Life With Memory Charm), there is the presently 
unanswerable question of what horrific things Arthur might have done under 
Imperius, how he was exonerated, and whether there are any questions 
remaining in anyone's mind about his innocence, which would affect how big 
and ugly the skeleton might be and how deeply its revelation would impact the 
family.  

And Abigail cites the following to support the Auror ice cream to accompany 
the Arthur With Imperius cake:

Amos Diggory calls on Arthur to bail Moody out 
when his flying trashcans attack muggle policemen, and the reactions 
from Molly and the older Weasly children seem to suggest the kind of 
closeness you might see between former colleagues:

Debbie responds, after nibbling the ice cream:

Actually, I would offer Amos Diggory as another Imperio candidate, based 
partly on this incident and the further theory that Moody may have been 
responsible for their escape from Imperius.   Amos seems to have an enormous 
chip on his shoulder.  That he might have been Imperio'd and embarrassed 
about it is a possible explanation why it is so important to him that his son 
can stand shoulder to shoulder with Harry.   

I'm less certain about whether either could have been an Auror.  I'm not sure 
wizards who are susceptible to Imperius make strong candidates. 

Debbie, who also really likes Arthur, as well as the rest of the Weasleys 
(well, I'm still not certain about Fred, though I suspect that's not a 
popular view)





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From chynarose8 at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  1 04:14:53 2002
From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 04:14:53 -0000
Subject: Machiavellian Means and the Side of Good.
Message-ID: <a88mrt+kh7p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37248

I know that the subject of ends justifying the means, but given what 
we know of Harry and Dumbledore, would they stoop to hiding behind 
that tactic/phrase? Who in the Potterverse fighting for the side of 
good would *willingly* use the same magic as those on the side of 
evil (such as a group called the `moral "majority"' hacking into 
an `offensive' group list)? And in doing so, would they still 
be 'good'? Or would they automatically be shifted to the side 
of 'evil'? 




From chynarose8 at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  1 04:19:41 2002
From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 04:19:41 -0000
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Looks like we've been hacked. :)
In-Reply-To: <005301c1d933$7a0d5c60$e35d2d44@CG198071A>
Message-ID: <a88n4t+f4i2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37249

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Naraku <naraku at c...> wrote:
> From: "Joel N. Fischoff" <petrukio at e...>
> > On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Kendra Grant-Bingham wrote:
> > >Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re: [HPforGrownups] Sirius and 
Hogwarts
> food
> >
> > Unless someone has a really strange sense of humor, that is...
> 
> Yep- check out the group's homepage.  The little demonic Daniel 
Radcliffe is
> really pretty adorable.
> 
> Happy April Fool's, I guess.
> 
> Paige (delurking briefly to procrastinate a bit more)
And I like how they claim to be the 'moral "majority"'. Oh well, I'm 
sure it'll be cleared up soon; either after April Fools Day is 
offically over or when the hack has been offically logged.
0-0; Chyna Rose (who really should stop posting late at night when 
her mind is not quite sane and she does stupid stuff like forgetting 
to sign posts or sticking her foot in her mouth)




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Mon Apr  1 05:05:05 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:05:05 -0500
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Looks like we've been hacked. :) or not.
References: <a88n4t+f4i2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006501c1d93a$ca36bcc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37250

Growl.  The "Moral Majority" is not behind this "hacking".  It's just a April Fool's Joke from that guy who told everybody that HPfGU was going to close down last year -- or someone like him.  One of the mods, anyway.  I REALLY HATE this holiday.  It makes me feel all..twitchy.

My eternal burning hatred for April the 1st put aside, however, perhaps this particular joke is not in the best of tastes.  I hope you all realize that those who believe that Harry Potter is "evil" are merely a very SMALL, but very VOCAL, portion of the Christian community.  The number of "religious" fans on this very list is a witness to the fact that most of us do not adhere to such ridiculous (IMHO) beliefs -- such that a beautiful, imaginative book could lead children towards Satan.  I know I'm being a bit touchy, but still...I've had enough of the attitude of today's pop culture towards Christianity.  I don't care if it's not trendy, and I never give anyone a hard time about their religion, why can't people just leave us alone?

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Mon Apr  1 05:33:37 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:33:37 -0800
Subject: Looks like we've been hacked. :) or not.
In-Reply-To: <006501c1d93a$ca36bcc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
References: <a88n4t+f4i2@eGroups.com> <006501c1d93a$ca36bcc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <9020803336.20020331213337@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37251


Sunday, March 31, 2002, 9:05:05 PM, Laura Huntley wrote:

LH> My eternal burning hatred for April the 1st put aside, however, perhaps this particular joke is not in the best
LH> of tastes. 

I'm with you, Laura.  I was ready to E-mail Penny and say,
"I think someone has hacked into the List"; and I'm suffering
from Moody-like paranoia anyway about Yahoo!Groups with all this
talk about their changing servers and possibly charging fees, etc.
Anyway, to quote a famous Queen in Harry Potter's homeland,
"We are not amused."

-- 
Dave




From petrukio at enteract.com  Mon Apr  1 05:35:47 2002
From: petrukio at enteract.com (Joel N. Fischoff)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:35:47 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re[2]: Looks like we've been hacked. :) or
 not.
In-Reply-To: <9020803336.20020331213337@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203312335110.91013-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37252

On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Dave Hardenbrook wrote:
>Anyway, to quote a famous Queen in Harry Potter's homeland, "We are not
>amused."

Yah.  Well, and here I thought this list was supposed to be for grownups
too.

Joel




From saitaina at wizzards.net  Mon Apr  1 05:59:27 2002
From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:59:27 -0800
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re[2]: Looks like we've been hacked. :) or not.
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203312335110.91013-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
Message-ID: <042e01c1d942$6421f320$92e9adcf@oemcomputer>

No: HPFGUIDX 37253

Joel wrote-

<Yah.  Well, and here I thought this list was supposed to be for grownups
too.>

Come on guys it was pretty funny.  I think it's cute, for an April fools joke.  There's nothing horrible or life threatening about a temporary change of name for the list and It should have been an obvious joke.  This wasn't malicious such as the deleting of the lists it was just a laugh, an anual tradition in the HPfGU family.  Live a little...laugh, it'll make you live longer.

Saitaina


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lmccabe at sonic.net  Mon Apr  1 06:44:43 2002
From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:44:43 -0800
Subject: Missing Weasley Children?
Message-ID: <AKELJIAAIHFIEHOGCIBLGEOECHAA.lmccabe@sonic.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37254


So I did a quick search of the archived messages to see if anyone had posted
a thought that I had recently on this subject.  And it doesn't appear so.
With that in mind, I have more than just the large gap between Bill, Charlie
and Percy to back up the thought that there was a child (son) who has died.
It has to do with how families name their children.  I've known many
families that think it adorable to go with a theme when naming their
children.  Either it is everyone has the same first letter - James, Jenny,
Jill, Jeremy, etc. *or* as they did in the movie "Seven Brides for Seven
Brothers" another type of theme - that is using the alphabet.

In "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers," the oldest brother was Adam.  Then the
subsequent brothers were all given Biblical names, but they followed
alphabetically.  When it came to Frank, the parents had trouble finding a
Biblical name starting with F - so Frank is short for Frankincense.

Anyway, consider:

Arthur

Bill
Charlie
David?
Percy
Fred
George


Yes, I know that Percy wouldn't follow the naming scheme, nor would Ron.
Here's my slight modification to allow for that.  Possibly, Molly preferred
Percy as a name to "Edward" and the family started to call Percy by his
middle name.  I've never quite understood why parents will give a child one
first name and then call them by their middle name, but I know of that
happening on more than one occasion.  A cousin of mine was named Carol
Yvonne, but she's called Vonnie.  Try calling her Carol and she curtly tells
you she prefers Yvonne or Vonnie.

Then when it comes to Ron, he might have a similar first/second name
scenario.  How about his first name was Harold and the Weasley's called him
Harry for almost the first two years of his life.  Then when Harry Potter
became so famous, they felt that it best to call him by his second name in
deference and honor of The Boy Who Lived.

This scenario would allow for enough subterfuge for JKR to provide cover
that Ron was actually the Seventh Son who by legend is destined to be
prophetic.  If she had named Percy - "Edward" and if Ron was "Howard," the
alphabetizing and gap would have been very obvious.  Too obvious for JKR.

I really enjoyed Elkins theory regarding Arthur under Imperious Curse.  It
seemed very plausible as well as Barbara Jebenstreit's interpretation of
Ron's first encounter with Harry and the darkened look he had when
mentioning he was the sixth child to attend Hogwarts.  I also liked
Abigail's mention of Arthur's description of the Dark Mark and how it could
have been an allusion to finding it at his own home marking the death of a
child.

I think we are on to a Dark Backstory for the Weasley family.

Athena






From lmccabe at sonic.net  Mon Apr  1 07:25:57 2002
From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 07:25:57 -0000
Subject: Snape as "half dead"
In-Reply-To: <a872lb+ccdp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a89225+c1i8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37255

Rita wrote:


This isn't in response to any particular post, but to the theories 
that someone can be "half vampire" or "half dementor".  From my 
understanding, vampires and dementors are not living things.  
Vampires are dead, no?  How could one be partially dead?  
Could a dead thing mate and cause life within another to make a 
half dead child?  I don't see how this is possible.  Same with the 
dementor concept.

If someone could explain this, please do!

Athena:

When I was in high school I had the assignment to write a ten page 
research paper on any topic.  Of course, being a teenager I had a 
difficult time figuring out what to do it on.  Somehow or another I 
decided to research vampires and werewolves.  I soon found out that 
there was a dearth of information on lycanthropy, but a wealth of 
info on vampires.  I dropped the werewolf subject and concentrated 
solely on vampires.  

I think that JKR is trying to borrow and tweak legends and mythology 
to serve her own needs plotwise - so she I think she'll freely adapt 
things independent of whatever research is done regarding vampire 
legends.  However, since you asked...

There are many, many ways to become a vampire.  Of course the 
easiest way is to be bitten by one.  You do *not* have to be bitten 
three times by one in order to become one yourself.  One bite is 
sufficient and you do not have to die right away.  You might live 
twenty years afterwards and then after you die - boom, it's Undead 
City.  You can also be bitten countless times (maybe little love 
nips with just sips of blood taken?)

You can become a vampire if you are excommunicated or if a vampire 
looks in the direction of your mother while she is pregnant with 
you.  When you die - then you're a vampire.  In Greece, anyone with 
red hair is suspect.  (Only because red hair isn't common there and 
I mean to cast no aspersions toward the Weasleys!)  If a cat jumps 
over your coffin, then this magic will cause you to become a vampire.

The vampire legends are also filled with the erotic element.  It's 
not well hidden when you think about it.  Women are attacked in 
their bedrooms alone at night with a man they had to invite into 
their house.  More than one appetite was satisfied.  So, if a woman 
didn't die from the attack, there could be a child of a vampire 
conceived.  The child wouldn't become a full fledged undead vampire 
until their natural death.

And interestingly enough...when a werewolf is killed, it will rise 
up to become a vampire.  I'm surprised that Hollywood has never 
glommed onto that one as it has Sequel Written All Over It.  So if 
JKR knows that little quirk in legends, if she kills Lupin with the 
silver hand of Wormtail - he can still come back in another book!

Anyway, back to legend and canon.  One ancient Balkan legend had 
vampires having the ability to walk during high noon.  And if Snape 
could attend and sit in the front row of the stands during the 
Quidditch Final in PoA which was under bright sunshine, then he 
might not be a vampire if the "traditional" vampire legends apply.  
JKR might also have made a Special Potion that allows Snape to be in 
direct sunlight for limited periods of time.  If so that would be 
*highly convenient.*

One other thing that would bother me with the thought of Snape being 
a vampire is that vampires being Undead do not age.  From what we've 
read, Snape is the same age as Sirius and Remus.  Surely they'd have 
mentioned something that Severus doesn't look to be in his thirties, 
but rather a decade younger or so - you know when he Died and rose 
as a vampire?

Here's my last thought on this topic, someone earlier had posted 
mentions about Death Eaters and that it was similar to legends 
regarding those who would "eat the sins" of dying people.  That is 
also a belief in the ancient Aztec religion.  They were called Filth 
Eaters.  I'm however wondering if instead, JKR meant to allude to 
Renfield in "Dracula" who thought that if he ate the souls of small 
animals such as flies, spiders, and a big, sleek kitten that had 
been fed the souls of hundreds of flies and spiders that he would 
then become immortal.

If anyone wants to read more on this topic, check out Reverend 
Montague Summers's books, "The Vampire, His Kith and Kin" and "The 
Vampire in Europe."  They were written around 1914 or so and he 
quotes extensively in Latin and Greek, but you'll find information 
there from someone who truly believed that these legends were based 
on historical fact and not fantasy.  All the modern books written 
about vampires pay homage to his research, so I went to the source 
being quoted repeatedly.

Athena







From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  1 08:34:17 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:34:17 -0000
Subject: Naming Schemas (was Missing Weasley Children?)
In-Reply-To: <AKELJIAAIHFIEHOGCIBLGEOECHAA.lmccabe@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <a89629+4psk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37256

Athena posits a Weasley naming scheme - pardon the
snippage:

<<
I have more than just the large gap between Bill,
Charlie and Percy to back up the thought that there
was a child (son) who has died.

Arthur

Bill
Charlie
David?
Percy
Fred
George

This scenario would allow for enough subterfuge for
JKR to provide cover that Ron was actually the
Seventh Son who by legend is destined to be
prophetic. If she had named Percy - "Edward" and if
Ron was "Howard," the alphabetizing and gap would
have been very obvious. Too obvious for JKR.
>>

I really like this theory, but two points bother me:

1) Aside from the Weasleys, we've got "Padma and
Parvati," "Albus and Aberforth," "Colin and Dennis"
and "Lily and Petunia." The first two are
alliterative, the third alphabetical, and the fourth
themed. So far, none of those pairings has been
significant, which makes me wonder why this one
would be.

2) While I am totally with you that middle names are
often used as first names (my own cousin, Guy Patrick,
is known as Patrick), middle names have never come up
in the books before.

And, although it's not really a point of contention
with this theory, I tend to think that if anybody has
had miscarriages, it's Petunia. 'Course, I also like
to heap misery upon her, but that's beside the point.


Meanwhile, all this to-do about naming has given me
my OWN theory! Mwa ha ha!

Okay, so someone is going to find "late in life" that
they are magical, right? The frontrunners for this
endowment would seem (to me) to be Petunia and Filch.
I think it's going to be Petunia. My boyfriend thinks
it's going to be Filch. He also laughed at me when I
presented this theory, but I'd like to know what you
all think.

So far, we've seen six sets of siblings
(let me know if I missed any):

1) Padma & Parvati Patil
2) Albus & Aberforth Dumbledore
3) Colin & Dennis Creevy
4) The Weasleys

Now, as noted above, all of these names fit some sort
of pattern. And all of these sets of siblings are
magical. *Wholly* magical. But there are two more pairs:

5) Lily & Petunia Evans
6) Marjorie & Vernon Dursley

Majorie and Vernon are Muggles, and they don't match.
Lily and Petunia match, but as for their magical
powers...well, that remains to be seen, but I think
you all see where I'm going with this.

OTOH, it could just be that the entire Wizarding World
(and one set of Muggles) is obsessed with giving their
children cute matching names. Personally, I think Mr.
& Mrs. Dursley showed a bit of taste and restraint in
giving their children names that match in an un-cutesy way.

--Anna




From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  1 05:25:30 2002
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (ms_petra_pan)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 05:25:30 -0000
Subject: HP and similarities to other books (LONG + re-intro)
In-Reply-To: <a7ss9b+endu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a88r0a+h1nj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37257

Forgive me if this thread is a bit "old" - it took a while to write 
(and research) the following.  :)

"wibble_flibble" <a.levin at f...> asked:

> Last weekend I read "The Secret of Platform Thirteen" 
> by Eva Ibbotson, and was quite overcome by the similarities 
> to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone, mostly in the 
> way of characters.
>
> At first I though "What a swizz, pinching her ideas from 
> Rowling" then I realised the book was written two years 
> before Harry Potter book 1. 
>
> So, has anyone else read this book, noticed the "coincidences" 
> and if so, what do you think of it.
>
> By the way, I found there were also a couple of very similar 
> ideas to Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl too.

That is EXACTLY what I had thought when I first read TSoP13.  But 
since my initial knee-jerk reaction and after some thoughts, I have 
realized that there's bound to be common ground between books written 
by human beings because such stories have the same source: humanity.  
As varied as the innumerable facets of mankind are, patterns exist in 
us and our lives.  Such patterns are often refer to as archetypes: 
character types / psychological functions and energies / patterns of 
lives and of stories that have been identified by psychologists and 
those who study narratives.

In general, those who charge JKR with a lack of originality most often 
cite her use of archetypes, if they don't out-and-out accuse her of 
nicking elements from other stories.  What they don't usually 
acknowledge is the fact that these other stories take their cues from 
real life, our shared culture, a source that JKR is also entitled to 
tap into and incidentally, is now a part of.

The use of archetypes is not only time-honored but also a most 
effective technique for writing with psychological truths that are 
universal to our species.  Literary genius is achieved with the novel 
and/or powerful use of these archetypes.  Whether JKR is a genius is 
much more interesting to discuss than surface similarities.

TSoP13 contains many of the same archetypes as the Harry Potter 
series, but then, you can say the same for most books within this 
genre.  I enjoyed Ibbotson's many works a great deal, but her 
understanding of these archetypes is not as deep as JKR's and she does 
not combine them to as great effect and complexity as JKR does.  
Therein lies the difference.  A more profound similarity between these 
two writers is their shared wacky sense of humor.

kscottmccormick noted:

> The moderator of two anti-Potter Yahoo groups has a little webpage 
> on similarities to other fantasy literature at 
> http://www.geocities.com/hp_originality/

I find this webpage interesting but alas, LAS (the author) doesn't 
actually offer in depth explanations of his/her "severely limited 
tolerance for 'similarities.'"  I would be curious to know what value 
LAS assigns to the ability to examining anew the familiar...and what 
value to the opposite, reliance on inventions that require much 
exposition before their thematic importance can be explored.  After 
all, works of the same genre explore the same themes...otherwise, they 
wouldn't belong to the same genre.  I am sad to report that LAS has 
not gone into such details.

LAS states: "Critics and fans alike hail Rowling's creativity in the 
creation of her fictional world. But how many know of its lack of 
original content? There are some striking similarities to other 
fantasy books ? and some of the material is transplanted directly from 
legends and myths, without alteration or originality."

A discussion of how JKR differs and how she concurs with the earlier 
imaginings of these legends and myths would be of interest.  For 
example, a phoenix is a traditional symbol of regeneration and 
rebirth.  I find it telling that even Fawkes, JKR's own imagining of 
this bird, finds it hard to just get on with his own death, despite 
knowing full well that he WILL be reborn.  JKR's depiction of a 
procrastinating phoenix points out that even the knowledge of assured 
resurrection doesn't ease the pain of death.

LAS's laundry list of similarities is ultimately not satisfying as 
commentary.  S/he has gathered pairs of likenesses but offers no 
comparisons or analysis on the different authors' uses of similar 
motifs.  I have no idea what s/he thinks of such parallels...only that 
s/he noticed their existence.  This is too bad - I would have been 
more interested if LAS had identified the motifs and then discussed 
how these motifs have been treated by various authors, including JKR.

LAS's strong dissatisfaction with HP fans who have not found such 
"similarities" as disturbing as s/he does colors much of the 
assertions put forth on this webpage.  I agree that other authors 
besides JKR deserve attention too, but this is hardly a reason to 
issue thinly veiled accusation of "plagiarism" on JKR's part.  Rather 
than focusing on his/her "severely limited tolerance for 
'similarities,'" LAS's forum could have used the fact that JKR has 
piqued the interest of new readers to bring about the rebirth of older 
and still beloved works of this genre.  So could many others who are 
critical of JKR's success - how many of you now want to read Ibbotson?

Anyway, here are some other parallels not listed on this site that you 
can look for if you read TSoP13 and want to do your own compare and 
contrast:

?	Stubborn and willful pre-adolescent girls...and the boys who fall 
for them.
?	Mother figures named after flowers (yup, there's a Lily).
?	Schoolboys who actually hate holidays.
?	Lost boys who must be retrieved.
?	Magical places that repel ordinary people in quirky ways.
?	The use of "ludo."  (there's a connection to HP's Bagman)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Just for the heck of it, here's a great recap by Christopher Vogler 
(in his "The Writer's Journey") of Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey 
paradigm:

 1.	Heroes are introduced in the ORDINARY WORLD, where

 2.	they receive the CALL TO ADVENTURE.

 3.	They are RELUCTANT at first or REFUSE THE CALL, but

 4.	are encouraged by a MENTOR to

 5.	CROSS THE FIRST THRESHOLD and enter the Special World, where

 6.	they encounter TESTS, ALLIES AND ENEMIES.

 7.	They APPROACH THE INMOST CAVE, crossing a second threshold

 8.	where they endure the SUPREME ORDEAL.

 9.	They take possession of their REWARD and

10.	are pursued on THE ROAD BACK to the Ordinary World.

11.	They cross the third threshold, experience a RESURRECTION, 	and 
are transformed by the experience.

12.	They RETURN WITH THE ELIXIR, a boon or treasure to benefit 	the 
Ordinary World.

Archetypes: Hero, Mentor, Shapeshifter, Trickster, Herald, Allies, 
Shadow, Threshold Guardians...

See anything familiar?  If you get a chance to read C. Vogler's 
analysis of recent films using the above template, which is only one 
of the many permutations, you will see how archetypes offer a way for 
storytellers to examine anew the human condition by reinventing the 
familiar, over and over and over again.

Each of the HP books can also be analyzed individually by using the 
above - you will see how JKR reshuffles the elements in novel ways.  I 
am holding out the hope that when taken together, the seven books as a 
whole will also fit the character arc pattern that goes along with the 
above model...can't wait to see if they do.

Just my two dimes' worth,
Petra Pan, one of those Lost Girls you never seem to hear about

BTW, I'm not really new, just tired of my old and rather clunky 
moniker.  But really, I wasn't much more than a lurker.

Who am I: I hail from Los Angeles and i





From monika at darwin.inka.de  Mon Apr  1 09:04:43 2002
From: monika at darwin.inka.de (Monika Huebner)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:04:43 +0200
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius a "pureblood"?
In-Reply-To: <a87h36+3fqi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <MABBIOAJAKBIIEFEFANKIEINDAAA.monika@darwin.inka.de>

No: HPFGUIDX 37258

Marianne wrote:

> On the other hand, Sirius could be a pureblood who had been at the 
> top of his class in Muggle Studies, and so, might be well acquainted 
> with things like matches.  Or, his survival in the wild may be 
> attributed to his ability to transform into the dog, regardless of 
> pure, mixed or Muggle parentage.

Yes, of course you have a point here, the problem is that we don't
know - sigh. I don't completely buy the dog thing, though. I can't 
imagine him spending all his time in his animagus form, even though
we know from Peter's example that it's possible. He already spent
two winters outdoors, and I can't believe that even an animagus
would be able to survive all the time on dog food. He could have
been hunting then, but he is starved when we meet him in the
Shrieking Shack, and again at the end of GoF.

> Then, there is that motorcycle.  I don't think that giving a gasoline-
> powered, internal combustion engine vehicle the ability to fly is 
> simply a matter of waving one's wand and saying a spell.  I have no 
> canon evidence of this.  It just seems to me that if this was easily
> done, a lot of people would be trying it, and the Ministry would 
> never be able to stop it.  

I got the impression that this was one of the matters the Ministry
was really strict with. If everyone had a flying motorcycle or car, the
wizarding world wouldn't stay hidden from the Muggles for long.
Arthur never flies his car himself, and Molly is furious when her
sons are doing so to rescue Harry from the Dursleys. Maybe at the time
of VWI this was handled a bit less strictly because other matters
were more important. After all, Hagrid doesn't hesitate to take the
motorcycle from Sirius to take Harry to the Dursleys. But there's
one thought that just struck me, Dumbledore doesn't seem to
know the bike belongs to Sirius. I'm just listening to PS/SS again,
and he asks Hagrid where he got the bike from, and Hagrid answers
that "young Sirius Black lent it to me". So, does this imply that the
bike was Sirius' secret, like being an animagus?

> Or maybe Dad Black is/was a muggle who owned an auto repair shop and 
> young Sirius had fun tinkering with bits of engines, crank shafts, 
> master cylinders, etc.  and figured things out on his own.  

Well, that would make him a half blood, and this makes the most sense
to me, at least at the moment. Like someone else said, he also has
that wizard pride, so he might just be taking the best part from both
cultures, so to speak. 

> Maybe we can beg, plead or otherwise grovel to JKR, once she finishes 
> the series, to publish some sort of Potterverse encyclopedia that 
> would answer all of these questions...

Yes, I would like that a lot better than her writing "Hogwarts, a History",
although that might be quite interesting, too.


Dave Hardenbrook wrote:

> This is an interesting question about the nature of Sirius' family:
> What sort of family, Wizard or Muggle, would allow their son to go
> to prison without a trial??

That's what struck me about this affair, too. Other people have already
provided some answers, like his family being dead or ashamed of their
son, the mass murderer. Well, I don't want to declare him a tragic orphan,
but his family rejecting him because of his crimes makes quite a lot of
sense. It seems that no one except Dumbledore is actually helping him
in GoF, maybe Lupin, but we don't really know it. Everyone still believes
he's guilty, so the only family he has is Harry. Maybe we'll learn more
about it once we get to know the old crowd, at least I hope so.

Monika






From monika at darwin.inka.de  Mon Apr  1 09:33:46 2002
From: monika at darwin.inka.de (Monika Huebner)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:33:46 +0200
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Machiavellian Means and the Side of Good.
In-Reply-To: <a88mrt+kh7p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <MABBIOAJAKBIIEFEFANKGEIODAAA.monika@darwin.inka.de>

No: HPFGUIDX 37259


> -----Original Message-----
> From: abigail_draconi [mailto:chynarose8 at hotmail.com]

> I know that the subject of ends justifying the means, but given what 
> we know of Harry and Dumbledore, would they stoop to hiding behind 
> that tactic/phrase?

I honestly don't think so. If the situation is going to take the same
direction as during VWI, where Crouch finally gave permission to his
Aurors to use the unforgivable curses, including the killing curse, 
I can't imagine Dumbledore agreeing to this.

> Who in the Potterverse fighting for the side of 
> good would *willingly* use the same magic as those on the side of 
> evil (such as a group called the `moral "majority"' hacking into 
> an `offensive' group list)? And in doing so, would they still 
> be 'good'? Or would they automatically be shifted to the side 
> of 'evil'? 

Was Crouch sr. evil? IMHO, the wizarding world didn't see him like
that, and they didn't send all the Aurors to Azkaban for using the
unforgivable curses. We know Crouch didn't get the job of Minister
for Magic because *someone* might have thought he overstepped
the mark, but then, we don't know who the minister is elected, or if
he is elected at all. The parting of the ways at the end of GoF does
already hint to how things will develop. I think that once Fudge 
acknowledges Voldemort's return, he will perhaps follow Crouch's
example, too stupid to realize that this was exactly what caused
his downfall. But I have the impression that for him, the ends always
justify the means, after all he does everything to keep his popularity.
He is ready to administer the Dementor's kiss to Sirius, although
a couple of people tell him that he is innocent. Even if he does not
really believe it, he shouldn't sentence a man to death if there is the
slightest hint that there might be a miscarriage of justice. So, yes,
I think Fudge and his followers would willingly use the same magic
as the "evil side" to fight them, but Dumbledore and the old crowd
won't. When Sirius told Harry about Crouch in the cave scene, I
didn't get the impression that he agreed with his giving permission
to use the killing curse on supposed Death Eaters, and he probably
wouldn't join someone who would. Nor would Lupin, IMO.

Monika







From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr  1 09:44:51 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 09:44:51 -0000
Subject: Magic calorie-burning
In-Reply-To: <a88j2m+gtlm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a89a6j+fpc6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37260

Marina wrote:
> In any case, when I originally had my "magic burns calories" idea, I 
> wasn't thinking of wizard weight problems at all; I was thinking 
> about the First Law of Thermodynamics: energy can be converted from 
> one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.  It may 
> be just the engineering geek in me coming to the surface, but I like 
> to think that magic doesn't just ignore the laws of physics -- it 
> has to work within them, but using totally different methods and 
> principles than science does.  So to cast a spell, potential energy 
> must be converted to kinetic/magical energy, and since there's no 
> evidence that wizards draw potential energy from an external source, 
> I assume it must come from the spell-caster him/herself.
>
> Marina

(Grey Wolf the Eddings-fan is back. Fear. Or better, just listen 
patiently once more)

In David Eddings' magical theory "Will and Word" (Belgariad/Mallorean), 
you shape reality with your will and then channel it into the real 
world by using a word (ANY word). It's something a bit like the will 
and the wand Potterverse has, although that's besides the point. In the 
Will and Word, you draw the appropiate energy from all around you (more 
powerful wizards can draw it from further afar). For example, if you 
want to create a ball of fire, you draw a little heat from the air, the 
ground, any living thing there is, etc. You draw it in, and then you 
channel it through the word. "Noone has the enough energy inside to do 
even the smallest of things". In Potterverse, it could happen more or 
less the same way. No cannon to back it up, just another possibility of 
having magic support the laws of thermodynamics.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf (Who is from a country were the fools day isn't celebrated on 
May 1st, and was somewhat surprised at today's home screen for HP4GU, 
until he realised the date - lucky he knows about English customs)





From alina at distantplace.net  Mon Apr  1 10:23:23 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 05:23:23 -0500
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re: Naming Schemes
References: <a89629+4psk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004601c1d967$41dac600$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37261

  From: saintbacchus 

  OTOH, it could just be that the entire Wizarding World
  (and one set of Muggles) is obsessed with giving their
  children cute matching names. 
I don't think we should put Padma and Parvati into the "cute" category, they were named after sibling goddesses and more than likely are named to honour rather than match. 

As for the fact of the rest of the Wizarding families giving matching names, maybe all wizarding families do that for the same reasons as their love for rhyming. We see several rhyming riddles in the book and Ron attempts a rhyming spell in book one (to turn scabbers yellow). I think the matching names fall into the same category of literary obsessions. Remember the name of Ron's comics? "Adventures of Martin Miggs the Mad Muggle".  The fact that the Evans family named their daughters to match a theme would perhaps suggest either a hint of wizarding blood in them or a prescient accident. They didn't *mean* for it to mean anything, it just happened to match the fact that Lily was a witch. 

I'm going to stop before I thoroughly confuse everyone. 

P.S. as for middle names, isn't it a fact that Harry's middle name is James? 

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Mon Apr  1 13:09:05 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:09:05 -0500
Subject: Looks like we've been hacked. :)
In-Reply-To: <005301c1d933$7a0d5c60$e35d2d44@CG198071A>
Message-ID: <3CA815A1.9886.8DC6489@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 37262

On 31 Mar 2002 at 23:12, Naraku wrote:

> > Unless someone has a really strange sense of humor, that is...

Never in a million years.  Got to be another explanation.

> Yep- check out the group's homepage.  The little demonic Daniel Radcliffe is
> really pretty adorable.

You should see the front page at http://www.fictionalley.org/    Oh. My. God.

> Happy April Fool's, I guess.

Apparently. :)

  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

The last temptation is the greatest treason:  
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.
           T. S. Eliot "Murder in the Cathedral"




From meboriqua at aol.com  Mon Apr  1 14:14:16 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:14:16 -0000
Subject: Official Discussion Questions for the next Few Months: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <001601c1d92f$5acf2620$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a89pvo+fhbo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37263

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
 
> In GoF, Ron remarks, 'Percy loves rules,' and he wonders whether his 
brother would send a family member to Azkaban if it would advance his 
career (GoF, pg 463).  Reflect on the role of bureaucracy in the 
novels.  Does his tendency to side with bureaucracy make Percy 
susceptible to the same sorts of errors made by Cornelius Fudge and 
Barty Crouch, Sr., errors that ultimately (if unintentionally) help 
Lord Voldemort?  Might we expect him - albeit unwillingly - to aid 
Voldemort by following the letter of the law instead of its spirit?  
Will he side with Crouch or with his family?>

First of all, Penny, I am truly impressed with the effort you put into 
this question.  If we weren't all distracted with Evil John... well, 
he shall suffer, do not worry!

Anyway, I am most definitely a member of P.I.N.E., but I worry about 
Percy just the same.  My response to your many excellent questions is 
not as lengthy as yours, but I believe it just the same.  Percy is not 
a bad guy by any means.  He very much the big brother who gets 
irritated with his younger siblings and he does care for his family.  
I think his ambitions for success are as much to please mom and dad as 
they are just to be successful.  I also think Percy feels lonely a 
good deal of the time and would love for his siblings to give him more 
of a chance; listen to his ideas, give some real feedback, etc.  This 
is not someone who would simply turn in a family member to further his 
own career.

However, Percy has not always been known to make the best decisions.  
He was downright daft when it came to Crouch Sr.  So openly and 
blindly admiring someone who Percy didn't know well and who didn't 
even know Percy's name... that is problematic.  Percy has the tendency 
to think someone is right simply because that person has a position of 
authority.  I believe that Percy will cause some damage (just how I am 
not sure) but I also believe that he will go against someone above him 
(Fudge, perhaps) when his back is to the wall.  I think in the end, 
Percy will go with his family.  The Weasleys have raised their 
children to support each other and with a lot of love.  This has 
reached Percy, too, who also seems to be someone who would respond 
quite powerfully to guilt.  Unfortunately, I think Percy has a price 
to pay for this and he won't end up the arrogant, eager to please 
person he started.

--jenny from ravenclaw*************




From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk  Mon Apr  1 14:44:47 2002
From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 15:44:47 +0100
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re: Naming Schemes
References: <a89629+4psk@eGroups.com> <004601c1d967$41dac600$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <001e01c1d98b$c5a522e0$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 37264

Alina wrote: >>OTOH, it could just be that the entire Wizarding World
  (and one set of Muggles) is obsessed with giving their
  children cute matching names. <<

There do seem to be an innordinate amount of matching names... Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin, Helga Hufflepuff, Rowena Ravenclaw, Florean Fortesque, Pavarti Patil... erm... I'm sure there's more than that.  Although that said, if it is a wizarding tradition then it seems strange that the Malfoys would break it being rampant pure-bloods and all.  I definately go with Alina's cute theory and hope it was just a phase, although that makes the Malfoys seem to have some semblance of sense and taste, which is just scary. :)

Olly


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From hpfgumoderator at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  1 14:47:51 2002
From: hpfgumoderator at hotmail.com (hpfgumoderator)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:47:51 -0000
Subject: Who's the April Fool?
Message-ID: <a89run+2jql@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37265

Hi all. Those of you who've been to the group or read messages in the last 
nine hours will have noticed that we underwent a transformation in our 
mandate from "Harry Potter for Grownups" to "Ban Harry Potter NOW". 
OTChatter turned into "Harry Potter is Evil!" April Fool's! Apologies to anybody 
who went into cardiac arrest >:)

Of course, one of the other Moderators has taken it upon themselves to ban 
my usual address from the list...just deserts, methinks!

There'll be more, including a post remembering last year's April Fool's Day 
joke, on OT-Chatter -- please don't reply to this on-list.

--John, the April Fool
*not* for the HPFGU Moderator Team




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Mon Apr  1 15:21:57 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 15:21:57 -0000
Subject: Official Discussion Questions for the next Few Months: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <a89pvo+fhbo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a89tul+m923@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37266

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" <meboriqua at a...> wrote:

> Anyway, I am most definitely a member of P.I.N.E., but I worry about 
> Percy just the same.  

That's pretty much my take on it too.  I admit I hadn't given Percy
much thought in the earlier books, but I was surprisingly touched by
the scene where he splashes into the lake after Ron.  For a moment
there, he stopped being the comically pompous stuffed-shirt, and
became a real 18-year-old boy who was worried about his little
brother. Awwww.

Dramatically speaking, I do think JKR has been highlighting Percy's
character flaws deliberately (particularly in GoF, where there's so
much emphasis on his wrong-headed admiration of Crouch), and I expect
it to become a plot point in the next book.  A conflict between the
Weasely family and the MoM is definitely brewing.  Without Percy, it
becomes a very neat and clear-cut conflict -- we know that all the
other Weasleys will stand united. Percy's potentially conflicted
loyalties add an element of tension and complexity.  I think Percy may
make some mistakes and do some unintentional damage.  But I believe
he'll do the right thing in the end and become a nicer person for it
(assuming he survives the experience).

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From mlacats at aol.com  Mon Apr  1 17:11:43 2002
From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 12:11:43 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another werewolf question.
Message-ID: <aa.923bbe9.29d9eecf@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37267

In a message dated 03/30/2002 3:40:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
ChaserChick at hotmail.com writes:


> 
> >So is JKR being
> >inconsistent here or am I missing something about the nature of
> >werwolves? Any thoughts?
> 
> I'm not an expert in astronomy, and don't claim to be, but when the moon 
> rises, there is only a small amount of time when the moon is *completely* 
> full. Sorry I can't explain it any better than that. :(
> 
> Liz
> 

Hello everyone -- I'm going to jump in here.f

I'm wondering the same thing about the full moon and when Remus actually 
transforms.  Is it one day only....when the moon is 'fullest' -- I'm not an 
expert on Astromony either.  On the calendar, for March, the 28th. is marked 
as the day of the full moon, but it looked full, to me, a couple of days 
before!  So, is it actually that one day, when the moon is brightest, that 
Remus can transform....and does he have to see it in order for the 
transformation to take place...?  I'm thinking...all he has to do is see it 
for an instant and he'll transform....but then....  Can anyone explain it 
better....?

       Harriet


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From pennylin at swbell.net  Mon Apr  1 18:23:45 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:23:45 -0600
Subject: ADMIN: Friendly Reminder re: Making Strong Statements
Message-ID: <00b601c1d9aa$5c5ab240$e1ce7b40@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37268

Hi everyone --

Now that we're all recovered from John's April Fool's Day prank, we thought the start of a new month might be a good time to issue a few friendly reminders about posting.  

1.  Please remember to distinguish canon facts from beliefs, theories, etc.  In posting, please make liberal use of qualifiers such as "I think," "IMO," "I believe," "I hope," etc.  

2.  If you disagree with someone's point, remember to do so gently.  

3.  Please be sure to keep your subject headings on-point; make it a habit to take a quick glance at the subject heading before you hit "send."  

4.  Avoid one-liner posts; they are verboten in almost all cases.  If you want to post a one-liner about a particular topic, please combine it with another longer substantive post.  

Of course, to refresh your memory about all our rules & suggestions, please consult the Humungous BigFile, located at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hbfile.html

Thanks,

Penny
Magical Moderator Team


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com  Mon Apr  1 18:27:09 2002
From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 19:27:09 +0100
Subject: Another werewolf question. (Isn't there always one!)
References: <aa.923bbe9.29d9eecf@aol.com>
Message-ID: <002301c1d9aa$d5e66b40$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 37269


> > I'm not an expert in astronomy, and don't claim to be, but when the moon
> > rises, there is only a small amount of time when the moon is
*completely*
> > full. Sorry I can't explain it any better than that. :(
> >
> > Liz
> >
>
> Hello everyone -- I'm going to jump in here.f
>
> I'm wondering the same thing about the full moon and when Remus actually
> transforms.  Is it one day only....when the moon is 'fullest' -- I'm not
an
> expert on Astromony either.  .....................

My other half - who is an astronomy graduate - says the moon is only full
for one day.   I don't know if this is any help but, I suppose that,
depending exactly WHEN the moon becomes full - the sudden transformation of
Remus would occur at that time.

Felicia




From christi0469 at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  1 18:47:32 2002
From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 18:47:32 -0000
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re: Naming Schemes
In-Reply-To: <001e01c1d98b$c5a522e0$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk>
Message-ID: <a8aa04+cr75@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37270

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Olwyn" <igenite_olwyn at b...> wrote:
> Alina wrote: >>OTOH, it could just be that the entire Wizarding 
World
>   (and one set of Muggles) is obsessed with giving their
>   children cute matching names. <<

> Olly wrote,

> There do seem to be an innordinate amount of matching names... 
Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin, Helga Hufflepuff, Rowena 
Ravenclaw, Florean Fortesque, Pavarti Patil... erm... I'm sure 
there's more than that.   


We also have Severus Snape, Poppy Pomfrey, Minerva Mcgonigal, Fillius
(?) Flitwick, Dedalus Diggle, Peter Pettigrew, and for that matter, 
Dudley Dursley. There are probably more as well.

Christi






From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  1 19:28:23 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 19:28:23 -0000
Subject: Official Discussion Questions for the next Few Months: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <a89tul+m923@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8accn+igk0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37271

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" <meboriqua at a...> wrote:
> 
> > Anyway, I am most definitely a member of P.I.N.E., but I worry about 
> > Percy just the same.  
> 
> Dramatically speaking, I do think JKR has been highlighting Percy's
> character flaws deliberately (particularly in GoF, where there's so
> much emphasis on his wrong-headed admiration of Crouch), and I expect
> it to become a plot point in the next book.  A conflict between the
> Weasely family and the MoM is definitely brewing.  Without Percy, it
> becomes a very neat and clear-cut conflict -- we know that all the
> other Weasleys will stand united. Percy's potentially conflicted
> loyalties add an element of tension and complexity.  I think Percy may
> make some mistakes and do some unintentional damage.  But I believe
> he'll do the right thing in the end and become a nicer person for it
> (assuming he survives the experience).

A week or so ago somone posted a response in the Harry as Arthur thread, with regards to the Arthurian knight 
Parzival. Parzival, while in search for the holy grail, made some serious mistakes with the people he came in contact 
with, placing (or not placing) trust in the wrong place.  This mistake cost him the grail, but having accepted it and made 
amends, Parzival finds it.  I remember thinking that this might have more to do with Percy - Percival - than with Harry.  
Many names in HP are indicative of their bearer's personality, and I think it's very possible that Percy's name is the 
first indication that in the struggle between Dumbledore and the MoM, he will at first ally himself with the wrong side, 
and only later realise his mistake and correct it.

My apologies to whoever posted the Parzival post in the first place - first for not remembering your name, and second 
it I've made any grievous errors with the material.

Abigail





From kerelsen at quik.com  Mon Apr  1 20:33:51 2002
From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 15:33:51 -0500
Subject: Percy, etc. as Parzival (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Official Discussion Questions for the next Few Months: Question #1)
References: <a8accn+igk0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005701c1d9bc$89bf9e00$d421b0d8@kerelsen>

No: HPFGUIDX 37272


----- Original Message ----- >
> A week or so ago somone posted a response in the Harry as
Arthur thread, with regards to the Arthurian knight
> Parzival.

SNIP
>I remember thinking that this might have more to do with Percy -
Percival - than with Harry.
> Many names in HP are indicative of their bearer's personality,
and I think it's very possible that Percy's name is the
> first indication that in the struggle between Dumbledore and
the MoM, he will at first ally himself with the wrong side,
> and only later realise his mistake and correct it.

Ah yes.  That was my post.  I'm glad someone got some use from
it!. :)  And I'd seen the parallels to Percy, but since that
conversation was about Harry, I didn't put the Percy stuff in
that post.

I thought of another parallel that I hadn't thought of before in
the Percy/Parzival connection.

We've all noted how Percy is so very rule-bound.  He's a stickler
for the absolute letter of the law.  Even when the letter of the
law is not the best thing for society.  He's bloody annoying
about it, from his pompous attitude as a new Prefect during
Harry's First year to his focus on the thickness of cauldron
bottoms.

At the very beginning of Wolfram's Parzival story (once he's gone
off on his first adventure after leaving home), Parzival is a
bloody annoying git... His mother gave him specific rules of
behavior to follow and he follows them to the letter, not
thinking for himself at all--and it gets him into trouble! (In
his case, he ruins the reputation of a duchess because he just
doesn't know any better and in the end restores it once he's
educated himself, and realizes the harm he's caused her when he
encounters her again.) He also takes the rules that his first
mentor of the knightly life tells him and takes them too
far--having been told it's impolite to ask nosy questions,
Parzival doesn't ask Anfortas what is wrong and the whole mess
with the Gral happens.

> My apologies to whoever posted the Parzival post in the first
place - first for not remembering your name, and second
> it I've made any grievous errors with the material.

Don't worry, Abigail. :)  I'm pretty new to the list and most
people aren't familiar with me yet.  And you got the material
pretty much down pat. :)  I tend to specify which Parzival I'm
referring to, since Malory's (why did I just want to type
Malfoy?) and Wolfram's are somewhat different in behavior.

I've tried to make Arthurian connections to other HP characters,
and obviously, the Dumbledore/Merlin connection is strong, but I
think I'm going to find better connections when I get into the
old celtic legends like the Mabinogin (not sure if I spelled it
right)...  I'm definitely finding more connections with the male
charactes in HP than I am the female... Hermione has been right
difficult to find an archetype for, although Ron could fit any of
several of the various knights in Arthurian and other Medieval
romances... (I'm getting some hints of EREC AND ENIDE connections
but they haven't gelled yet.)

I do hope that Percy's personality has a real reason for being
the way it is instead of just being another method of telling the
characters apart in that big Weasley family!

Bernadette

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).




From m.bockermann at t-online.de  Mon Apr  1 20:18:51 2002
From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 22:18:51 +0200
Subject: Name scheme and Missing Weasley Children
References: <1017670475.3417.32298.m11@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <003d01c1d9ba$bd3cafe0$3d429fc1@i7p8l9>

No: HPFGUIDX 37273

Hi Athena! Hi everybody else!


You know, I kind of suspected that there had to be a scheme with names
starting with B, C, F and G. But I was thrown off-track by the questions of:
where is A (Arthur!) and what about Percy and Ron.

What your saying makes sense, especially if you think about the fact that
among all these traditional (British traditional?) names like Bill, Charlie,
Fred and George, Percy or Parceval kind of... sticks out. Edward or Edward
Percival would make much more sense. Maybe there is another Edward in a side
branch of the family and the family took on to call him Percy to avoid
confusion. And/or... Percy is the kind of person who'd decide that Percy is
much more intersting than "Edward" or "Eddy" and insist on being called
Percy.


<<<Then when it comes to Ron, he might have a similar first/second name
scenario.  How about his first name was Harold and the Weasley's called him
Harry for almost the first two years of his life.  Then when Harry Potter
became so famous, they felt that it best to call him by his second name in
deference and honor of The Boy Who Lived.

Ron is Harry's most loyal friend. But, as we have seen in GoF, he is also
frustated at always being second. If you are right... that would be hard on
Ron's ego, wouldn't it? He, I like it when there is pressure on characters.

And you are right. If there were Bill, Charlie, Edward, Fred and George,
people would start missing the D, Ron or no Ron.

Besides, we know that Ron is short for Ronald... at some time an angry Molly
calls him that, IIRC. Can't remember where, exactly, but it supports the
idea that the Weasleys are not using each others full name... except if
somebody is in *big* trouble. Now, if all of this is true, I'd hate to know
what would make Molly angry enough to call Ronald or Percy with their full
name.

Greetings,
Barbara Jebenstreit




From m.bockermann at t-online.de  Mon Apr  1 20:01:09 2002
From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 22:01:09 +0200
Subject: Official Discussion Questions for the next Few Months: Question #1
References: <1017670475.3417.32298.m11@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <003c01c1d9ba$bbddbc20$3d429fc1@i7p8l9>

No: HPFGUIDX 37274

Hi Penny! Hi everyone else!

Wow, you asked a lot of questions about Percy. I'll try to answer them.



<<<In GoF, Ron remarks, 'Percy loves rules,' and he wonders whether his
brother would send a family member to Azkaban if it would advance his career
(GoF, pg 463).  Reflect on the role of bureaucracy in the novels.  Does his
tendency to side with bureaucracy make Percy susceptible to the same sorts
of errors made by Cornelius Fudge and Barty Crouch, Sr., errors that
ultimately (if unintentionally) help Lord Voldemort?  Might we expect him -
albeit unwillingly - to aid Voldemort by following the letter of the law
instead of its spirit?  Will he side with Crouch or with his family?

I believe, that ultimately Percy will stand with his family. But until then,
I'm sure he will be the cause of misery and suffering for those he loves.
I admit, I have nothing much to proove this, except for the (admittedly
subjectiv) way I percieve the characters and their situation. Maybe that'll
get clearer if I try to answer the opther questions.



<<<So, is Percy's ambition highlighted more or about the same as some of the
flaws of the other characters?  If you believe it's been stressed even
slightly more, is this in your judgment a red flag or a red herring?  In
other words, are we the readers meant to believe that it would be Percy who
would be an unwitting pawn of the Dark Side or is Rowling perhaps
misdirecting us?  Are Ron's statements about Percy and his familial
relationships perhaps too heavy-handed?  Hermione seems to think so.  What
do you think of Hermione's judgment in this matter?

I don't think that Percy is more flawed than the other characters. But he is
in a powerfull position. Even though Ron and the twins are amused by his
reports about dripping cauldrons, he *is* working in the wizarding
equivalent of the foreign ministry. Even though the Crouch disaster will
delay his rise, he is ambitious and competent (otherwise, he'd hardly would
have been made prefect). I see him becoming estranged with his father for a
while. Arthur will use his position in the MoM to help the defenders. Percy
will be annoyed that he'll likely have to bent or break some rules. DD has
given Fudge a proverbial slap in his face with his announcements before the
holidays.
So Percy must choose between DD, Arthur and the other defenders or Fudge.
And he will side with Fudge. Not because he doesn't like or trust the
others. But because he will believe Fudge and his "I don't believe there is
a threat so there isn't a threat" policy. Percy was just old enough to
remember the time of Voldemorts reign but neither old or mature enough to
cope with it. I think he will refuse to accept that it happens again. He
doesn't dare to relieve this terror. The fact that his ambition and his stay
with the rules attitude only enforces his perception.
Percy is as blind to reality as Fudge. But for different reasons. Fudge
doesn't want to risk his position - his main motivation is truly ambition.
Percy refuses to deal with reality because of fear of what would happen if
DD and his father are right. Which means that Percy will have serious
arguements with his family at the beginning of OoP, in the likes of:
Percy: "I can't believe that you actually believe this nonsense!"
Arthur: "You don't believe Harry?"
Percy: "Have you read what Rita Skeeter wrote about him? I believe Fudge!"
Arthur: "You believe Skeeter?"
Percy: "Well Mom believes what she writes about Hermione and Harry."... and
so on.
So in a way I agree with Ron that Percy will mean trouble. But it is less
ambition, more the refusal to accept proof that will cause the desaster.
Hermione and Percy have gotten along well, for the most time, but they also
have been known to disagree. So while she might know him better than Ron, I
think she doesn't know him well enough that she can't be wrong. I think she
will be right in the end - that he'll stick to the family. But he will mean
trouble first, here I agree with Ron.



<<<Percy certainly adheres to the "rules" in this series.  But, under what
circumstances has he or would he abandon the rules in favor of some greater
good?
 Has Percy learned his lesson about blind adherence to rules?

I think that Percy would abandon rules *if* he believed it is necessary: for
the greater good or for his family. But since I assume he will refuse to
accept the crisis until it has hurt our friends, he doesn't have the choice
to break them in order to prevent the desaster.



>>>Will Percy be willing to listen to his family members or will his
ambitions even temporarily override familial loyalties and trust?  Ron
mentioned at one point that Percy wants to eventually become the Minister of
Magic.  If a permanent career within the MoM is his stated goal, how likely
is it that he will easily make the decision to follow his family to
Dumbledore's side?

Not his loyalties and trust, but his common sense and his wits.



Do you accordingly see Percy becoming amore important character overall in
one or more of the next HP books?  Is he really the same type of person as
Crouch or Fudge?  How would you distinguish Percy from these characters?

Yes, I think so. Besides Arthur, he is the second Weasley in the MoM. And
Arthur might not stay there for long. Either he will be thrown out because
he doesn't adhere to the official "nothing is wrong" policy, in which case
he might be reactivated later. Or he might be hurt or killed, in which case
Percy is the only Weasley connecting us to the pulse of wizarding politics.
Since I'm certain that one of this events is going to take place, Percy
*will* play an important role later.
What distinguishes him from Fudge or Crouch. When he finally has to choose,
he *will* side with his family and the good side. Even though that means
crawling back to them. However the Weasleys, with their huge hearts, will
take him back.

Why do I believe that he will be trouble? I don't think that all the hints
JKR left are simply in vain. He is in a perfect place to create havoc.
Judging from his characters, he would persue his ambitions... when he feels
it doesn't hurt his family. His mistake will be an mistake in judgement -
that his family is endangered by his actions. So what could that be?
He might uncover some of Arthur's actions for DD and the defenders and cause
his father's expellations. He might find out about Ron's, Hermione's and
Harry's secret regarding Sirius. It might be something else. But in any case
one of the defenders will be hurt or killed, most likely a member of his
family. I can't offer proof for this (though I'd be delightened if somebody
found some). But look at the situation of the family and JKR's hints that
people have to decide on which side they'll be on. There are too many
Weasleys for all of them to do the right thing from the start and none of
them to get hurt. And putting the pressure on this family (and thus
mirroring the situation of the WW in a whole)... I'd say this is just to
good a plot to get lost. Especially, if you have characters that, from their
faults and strength, are poised for tragedy.

Greetings,
Barbara Jebenstreit






From swt_gronsky at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  1 20:46:26 2002
From: swt_gronsky at yahoo.com (swt_gronsky)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 20:46:26 -0000
Subject: Centaur Teachers
In-Reply-To: <20020330181310.85873.qmail@web21104.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a8agv2+7ud8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37275

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu <ickle_ronniekins at y...> 
wrote:
[Snip]
> 
> I think centaurs would make good Divination teachers.
> Those 'ruddy stargazers' seem interested in what they
> do and they don't look fake to me (at least compared
> to the non-trance Trelawney). But of course it may be
> just stargazing that they know. Do they have teacups
> at all?
> 
> Oh, and Happy Easter! (Hope this greeting reaches you
> on time.)
> 
> -Ron Yu
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
> http://greetings.yahoo.com/


Is divination an inate skill for centaurs, or do they have to study 
and learn how? If so, how come only humans are enrolled at Hogwarts?

Any centaur who does agree to teach (assuming they'd be willing to 
interact with humans at all) would probably also make a good 
Astronomy teacher. Astrology, too.

- Saul






From finwitch at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  1 21:09:39 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 21:09:39 -0000
Subject: Naming Schemas (was Missing Weasley Children?)
In-Reply-To: <a89629+4psk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8aiaj+rak4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37276

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "saintbacchus" <saintbacchus at y...> wrote:
> Athena posits a Weasley naming scheme - pardon the
> snippage:
> 
> So far, we've seen six sets of siblings
> (let me know if I missed any):
> 
> 1) Padma & Parvati Patil
> 2) Albus & Aberforth Dumbledore
> 3) Colin & Dennis Creevy
> 4) The Weasleys
> 
> Now, as noted above, all of these names fit some sort
> of pattern. And all of these sets of siblings are
> magical. *Wholly* magical. But there are two more pairs:
> 
> 5) Lily & Petunia Evans
> 6) Marjorie & Vernon Dursley
> 
> Majorie and Vernon are Muggles, and they don't match.
> Lily and Petunia match, but as for their magical
> powers...well, that remains to be seen, but I think
> you all see where I'm going with this.
> 
> OTOH, it could just be that the entire Wizarding World
> (and one set of Muggles) is obsessed with giving their
> children cute matching names. Personally, I think Mr.
> & Mrs. Dursley showed a bit of taste and restraint in
> giving their children names that match in an un-cutesy way.

Weasleys..

Bill, Charlie (might go with Alphapets at first-- or: Bill... Paper 
Money/Check been paid! Something to do with money, anyway. 
(Interesting that he works in a bank) Oh, what a *charming* child - I 
think I'll call him Charlie... 
break? A child that died? Maybe, maybe not.
Percy is short for Percival (by *Arthurian* legend! Maybe *Arthur* 
Weasley had just read the Muggle book and liked it - so he named his 
son after a character in it?)
Fred&George... twins. Fred was born first, I guess - so they named 
them alphabetically to recall birth-order? Or did one of the parents 
just happen to notice something for them to be named so?
Ron - Ronald... Did the other brothers have a say in name-giving?
Ginny... Was someone playing gin?

And um - why aren't they talking about Molly's second cousin who's 
accountant, with Arthur being obsessed with Muggles and NOT meeting 
this relative-in-law in order to gain some *real* information?

Finwitch





From nesbitaa at purdue.edu  Mon Apr  1 21:37:52 2002
From: nesbitaa at purdue.edu (oboakk)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 21:37:52 -0000
Subject: Name scheme and Missing Weasley Children
In-Reply-To: <003d01c1d9ba$bd3cafe0$3d429fc1@i7p8l9>
Message-ID: <a8ajvg+9phr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37277

Barbara: 
> You know, I kind of suspected that there had to be a scheme with 
names
> starting with B, C, F and G. But I was thrown off-track by the 
questions of:
> where is A (Arthur!) and what about Percy and Ron.
<snip>
> And you are right. If there were Bill, Charlie, Edward, Fred and 
George,
> people would start missing the D, Ron or no Ron.
> 
> Besides, we know that Ron is short for Ronald... 

Oh, I do love the Missing Weasley Child and the naming pattern 
theories, but I think there might be another problem here.  As we 
know that Ron is short for Ronald, couldn't Bill also be short for 
William (or something like it)?  It just messes up the whole thing...
W, C, F, G, P, R..?  Ack!  If Bill really is short for William, only 
3 of the six boys would fit the theory.

Although, William Weasley would be another to add to the alliteration 
list. But I really want there to be a missing Weasley!

Abby





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  1 21:55:08 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 21:55:08 -0000
Subject: Name scheme and Missing Weasley Children
In-Reply-To: <003d01c1d9ba$bd3cafe0$3d429fc1@i7p8l9>
Message-ID: <a8akvs+dpnk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37278

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., m.bockermann at t... wrote:
> Besides, we know that Ron is short for Ronald... at some time an 
angry Molly
> calls him that, IIRC. Can't remember where, exactly, but it 
supports the
> idea that the Weasleys are not using each others full name... 
except if
> somebody is in *big* trouble. Now, if all of this is true, I'd hate 
to know
> what would make Molly angry enough to call Ronald or Percy with 
their full
> name.

I don't recall Molly calling him that - but we're told, in the 
Sorting!

But, ABC - a beginning of Family. Arthur(the father) Bill(money-
related name, and works in a bank???) Charlie (who may have been a 
charming child).

Then, a break after two kids? Maybe.

Then, they have Percival Weasley. (I wonder if they read about 
*Arthur* and Round Table, and named Percy after Sir Percival, the 
knight who managed to be innocent, good and brave?)

Then, when Percy is two, and Mommy has *twin* babies to look after, 
and Daddy's at work... Bill(9) and Charlie(7) look after Percy(2)..
Two years. Bill attends Hogwarts. Charlie (9) may look after 4-year-
old Percy, but now they have *two* 2-year-old, busy toddlers AND a 
baby Ron! This situation means a) Percy must take a bit of 
responsibility at 4 - and does it by observing rules. b) Fred&George 
manage to gain Mommy's attention occasionally and c) Ron doesn't get 
as much attention as others when a baby, because one toddler or other 
is in trouble... explains a *lot* about their characters!

When Charlie foes to Hogwarts... Percy, practical joker-twins, 
toddler Ron, and baby Ginny.
Ginny grows, but this "home family" is that way for 7 years, then 
Percy attends Hogwarts - 9-year-old Fred&George gain attention by 
jokes, and 5-year-old Ginny's just little, for 2 years.

Then... Ron gets to go to Hogwarts. It's very understandable - all. 
How Ron got to be the one getting least attention - Ginny got a year 
by herself... Yes - Ron definately didn't get as much attention as 
others - but well...





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  1 22:17:44 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 22:17:44 -0000
Subject: Centaur Teachers
In-Reply-To: <a8agv2+7ud8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8ama8+iktd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37279

In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu <ickle_ronniekins at y...> wrote:
> > I think centaurs would make good Divination teachers.
> > Those 'ruddy stargazers' seem interested in what they
> > do and they don't look fake to me (at least compared
> > to the non-trance Trelawney). But of course it may be
> > just stargazing that they know. Do they have teacups
> > at all?

> Is divination an inate skill for centaurs, or do they have to study 
> and learn how? If so, how come only humans are enrolled at Hogwarts?
> 
> Any centaur who does agree to teach (assuming they'd be willing to 
> interact with humans at all) would probably also make a good 
> Astronomy teacher. Astrology, too.

I'm reminded of the centaurs of Piers Anthony's Xanth series, where 
centaurs while considering personal magic 'obscene' used magic to 
gain knowledge. The greatest teachers of the Royal Family were 
centaurs.

In the Potterverse, the Centaurs of the Forbidden Forest in SorSt 
read the stars, but were reluctant to share their knowledge.
Maybe if one read that the centaurs would come to Hogwarts they would 
be willing. (Or maybe Tralawney would read it and would search them 
out.

I would be intrigued if a centaur sought out not Harry, but Ron, 
Hermione, Ginny, or Neville as being a central figure in a coming 
battle.

Uncmark




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  1 22:38:45 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:38:45 -0600
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re[2]: Looks like we've been hacked. :) or not.
Message-ID: <F174uwRpBXBiek9C2D90001eb17@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37280


>Sunday, March 31, 2002, 9:05:05 PM, Laura Huntley wrote:
>LH> My eternal burning hatred for April the 1st put aside, however, perhaps 
>this particular joke is not in the best
>LH> of tastes.

Dave wrote:
>I'm with you, Laura.  I was ready to E-mail Penny and say,
>"I think someone has hacked into the List"; and I'm suffering
>from Moody-like paranoia anyway about Yahoo!Groups with all this
>talk about their changing servers and possibly charging fees, etc.
>Anyway, to quote a famous Queen in Harry Potter's homeland,
>"We are not amused."

Oh believe me, this is a minor joke from what someone on my Beta list wrote:

<<
Subject: [HPBetaFanFiction] Bad news gang! JK Rowling just pulled the plug!

On her fifth, sixth and seventh Harry Potter novel.
There isn't going to be any more!
She also pulled the plug on the second movie too!
:(
Beth
>>

Imagine what sort of fright this gave me!

Liz

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  1 23:37:10 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 17:37:10 -0600
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re: Official Discussion Questions for the next Few
 Months: Question #1
Message-ID: <F286tC7tXjs5FGJziWw00013ed0@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37281

>From: "jenny_ravenclaw" <meboriqua at aol.com>
>If we weren't all distracted with Evil John... well,
>he shall suffer, do not worry!

Evil John...hmph.

>Anyway, I am most definitely a member of P.I.N.E., but I worry about
>Percy just the same... <<SNIP>>

Same here. Ron put it best: "Percy loves rules." I don't think he'll end up 
"going bad". Misguided, yes, perhaps. Hopefully, if he gets into trouble, 
he'll realise it before he digs himself a hole too deep to get out of. :)

Liz

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Tue Apr  2 00:05:59 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 16:05:59 -0800
Subject: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Machiavellian Means and the Side of Good.
In-Reply-To: <MABBIOAJAKBIIEFEFANKGEIODAAA.monika@darwin.inka.de>
References: <MABBIOAJAKBIIEFEFANKGEIODAAA.monika@darwin.inka.de>
Message-ID: <29229670653.20020401160559@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37282



Hi,

Monday, April 01, 2002, 1:33:46 AM, monika at darwin.inka.de wrote:

> When Sirius told Harry about Crouch in the cave scene, I
> didn't get the impression that he agreed with his giving permission
> to use the killing curse on supposed Death Eaters, and he probably
> wouldn't join someone who would. Nor would Lupin, IMO.

But wasn't Sirius getting ready to use the killing curse on
Peter Pettigrew?
At least that's how I understood it.

So, while he sounded disapproving of Crouch using violence
against violence, he was prepared to do the exact same
thing in PP's case.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  2 00:19:45 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 18:19:45 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Naming Schemes
Message-ID: <F293Lw2UggLHWbw1q8a00010930@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37283

Finwitch wrote:
>Ginny... Was someone playing gin?

I think its a fandom assumption (by some, anyway) that Ginny is short for 
Virginia.

Liz

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  2 00:47:30 2002
From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (scaryfairymary)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:47:30 -0000
Subject: Percy's Character Flaw  (was:Re: Official Discussion Questions ...: Question #1)
In-Reply-To: <a89pvo+fhbo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8av33+64u4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37284

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
>  
> > In GoF, Ron remarks, 'Percy loves rules,' and he wonders whether 
his 
> brother would send a family member to Azkaban if it would advance 
his 
> career (GoF, pg 463).  Reflect on the role of bureaucracy in the 
> novels.  Does his tendency to side with bureaucracy make Percy 
> susceptible to the same sorts of errors made by Cornelius Fudge and 
> Barty Crouch, Sr., errors that ultimately (if unintentionally) help 
> Lord Voldemort?  Might we expect him - albeit unwillingly - to aid 
> Voldemort by following the letter of the law instead of its 
spirit?  
> Will he side with Crouch or with his family?>
>
--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" <meboriqua at a...> wrote: 
> First of all, Penny, I am truly impressed with the effort you put 
into 
> this question.   
> Anyway, I am most definitely a member of P.I.N.E., but I worry 
about 
> Percy just the same.  

  Well, I hate to play devil's advocate here but..... Percy HAS to be 
EVIL.  I really havn't been able to warm to his character at all (not 
for lack of trying!) He really is very very power hungry ("Prefects 
Who Gained Power") and I don't hold up much hope for his redemption.  
>From his sheep like following of Crouch Sr. to his mere lack of 
ability to 'let his hair down' he really hasn't shown any ability to 
survive in the real world, let alone in a war situation. I remember a 
quote from Prof. Quirrel in PS along the lines of;
 "Theres no good or Evil, just power and those too weak to seek it"
(I lent my copy of PS to my brother so havent got the exact quote so 
my apologies)IMO, this quote really sums up Percy's philosophy in 
life. In OP he will be overcome by a desire for Power and a monstrous 
lack of vision, and end up(intentionally or otherwise) either aiding 
th Dark Side or hindering the Old Crowd in some way.  Perhaps he will 
get suspicious of his father in the Ministry and report him to 
Fudge?  I have *no* faith in his ability to see the wood from the 
trees when it comes to Power and his quest for it.

  The only example of Percy acting as if he is proud of a family 
member is when Ron is being praised by Dumbledore for "the best game 
of chess..." at the end of PS.  Even here I doubt his if he is being 
genuine.  I see it as an attention seeking exercise on his part, not 
allowing Ron to be the very centre of attention for even a second, he 
attempts to steal glory by association.  Maybe he is just very 
insecure (caused by the death of an older sibling perhaps??!!!:P) but 
I cant see how he is going to possibly avoid getting himself, and 
others, into trouble.

 -Mary (who is waiting to feel the toaster flying at her from 
somewhere in the distance!! I'm sorry...I just don't like Percy!) 




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 00:41:08 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:41:08 -0000
Subject: Hair and Beauty in the Wizarding World
In-Reply-To: <a85b25+sptp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8aun4+5jfn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37285

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ritadear2" <ritadarling at i...> wrote:
> Uncmark wrote:
> 
> "If you hade magical powers, wouldn't you be as 
> beautiful as possible? Or in a world of Magic would the views of 
> beauty differ?"
> 
> This is something that I have given a considerable amount of 
> thought to, usually during my own beauty routine ;-).  In my 
> fantasies about the wizarding world, they are less inclined to the 
> anorexic body types and favor a more normal figure, lol.  

I've not started using make-up - all too uncomfortable for me. 
Besides, I think that using make-up is unhealthy. Just think of it-- 
eyelashes are supposed to keep all kinds of little impurities from 
getting into your eyes -- and you want to put makeup on them?

If I *could* do things easily, causing no harm with a wave of wand - 
why not?

> "Snape is content to leave his oily hair long and greasy. If there 
> was a potion that could fix hair, wouldn't the Hogwart's Potion 
> Master have it?"
> 
> Yes, I am sure he would.  There is no discussion/description of 
> him being otherwise unclean--no mention of offensive body odor 
> or unwashed clothing, so I had assumed that his "greasy" hair 
> was not of a dirty sort, but instead something he liked or just the 
> way his hair was in a normal hygienic state and he just didn't 
> care at all.  He's got bigger things on his mind than the state of 
> his hair!

Maybe he hasn't heard of Shampoo for Greasy Hair. Or thinks it's 'too 
Muggle'. Or... Maybe he had bad experience as a child, getting 
shampoo into his eyes?
 
> "So there is hair potion, Is it just that Hermione considers it too 
> much trouble or that she values books more than looks?"
> 
> I'd imagine this to be true, too.  She can't possibly be spending 
> three hours to get her hair under control on a daily basis.  
> Besides, Rita Skeeter described her as pretty or attractive or 
> something with her hair all wild anyway, and Krum found her 
> attractive enough to ask her out, and Ron is obviously smitten.  I 
> don't think Hermione needs to fuss with hair potion to be pretty.

None does, IMO.
 
> "It would be a good topic for discussion. Would you use a spell 
> instead of buying makeup? Would there be sufficient motivation 
> (profit) to get skilled wizards making instant beauty spells?"
> 
> Oh, gawd yes!  I'd also like to find a hair color I like and 
> somehow make it stay that way!  But, I also remember Prof. 
> McGonagall making a remark to one of the Patil sisters about a 
> decorative hair clip, telling her to get that ridiculous thing out 
of 
> her hair.  So, do the witches wear makeup?  Do they change 
> their hair color?  Is ornamentation, aside from dress robes, 
> considered frivolous and silly?

I prefer simple dressing. I can't think a witch would want makeup... 
Colour-changing spells etc.
 
> Another thing, on the same lines, I have been thinking about...do 
> wizards and witches exercise?  I know they laugh at muggles for 
> lifting heavy objects, but, as I dilligently go about my exercise 
> routines, I wonder, do they?  Do they need to?  Their physiology 
> is the same as ours, from what we know, except they live longer, 
> so it seems that keeping stong muscles and stamina would be 
> important as well.  And, with what I've read they eat there on a 
> regular basis, it seems they'd need something to get that 
> cholesterol under control.  Can you imagine McGonagal doing 
> pilates?  LOL, or Snape in a martial arts class?  Tee hee hee.
 
They're as different as Muggles, I think. Anyway, how can you tell 
with all those loosely hanging ropes? Arthur Weasley doesn't exercise 
much (and was in bad shape, not quite managing his breath after the 
walk)..

--Finwich 




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 00:12:31 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:12:31 -0000
Subject: Sirius a "pureblood"?
In-Reply-To: <F1605V3GykBbKP7Ie8t00001a65@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a8at1f+ej24@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37286

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Liz Sager" <ChaserChick at h...> wrote:
> Grey Wolf wrote:
> SNIP video games and whys Sirius wouldn't understand
> 
> >In conclussion, that little piece of canon seems to point towards a
> >Sirius from muggle family, but it is pretty circumstancial at any 
rate,
> >so please post your own evidence.
> 
> Another matter is that motorcycle.
> 
> I have figured Sirius to be muggle-born or half-blood, simply 
because of the 
> motorcycle that he enchanted to fly. Or perhaps Lily introduced it 
to him.
> 
> On the same token, I have figured Remus to be a pureblood or at 
least 
> half-blood, because in the chapter "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and 
Prongs" in 
> PoA, he tells the trio that his parents did a lot of searching for 
a cure 
> after he was bitten, of which there was none. Muggles would be out 
of it, 
> certainly. ;)

And... I think Sirius *was* pureblood. I think he lived next door, if 
not same building to Potters'. Sirius and James were friends and 
bloodbrothers. Sirius may never have known his father, and found 
James' father as father-figure.

I think the two, Sirius and James may have considered it *fun* to go 
for a Muggle survival expedition into the woods! (Besides, they 
weren't allowed to do magic outside Hogwarts) - so, they go hiking... 
Old Potter may have shown them how! I don't like to think that 
original use for Invisibility Cloak was for stealing but for hunting 
i.e. ducks. They'd want to remain unseen by the prey... And Old 
Potter always left his wand home...

--Finwich




From mlacats at aol.com  Mon Apr  1 23:31:27 2002
From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 18:31:27 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] [BanHarryPotterNow!] Re: Naming Schemes
Message-ID: <35.24736e80.29da47cf@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37287

In a message dated 04/01/2002 10:51:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
christi0469 at hotmail.com writes:


> > Olly wrote,
> 
> > There do seem to be an innordinate amount of matching names... 
> Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin, Helga Hufflepuff, Rowena 
> Ravenclaw, Florean Fortesque, Pavarti Patil... erm... I'm sure 
> there's more than that.   
> 

Hello Olly,

I think that JKR is having loads of fun with these names......"Poppy 
Pomfrey"........makes me chuckle..............

Harriet


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From Zarleycat at aol.com  Tue Apr  2 01:33:58 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 01:33:58 -0000
Subject: Sirius a "pureblood"?
In-Reply-To: <MABBIOAJAKBIIEFEFANKIEINDAAA.monika@darwin.inka.de>
Message-ID: <a8b1q6+jp78@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37288

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Monika Huebner" <monika at d...> wrote:
> 
> Dave Hardenbrook wrote:
> 
> > This is an interesting question about the nature of Sirius' 
family:
> > What sort of family, Wizard or Muggle, would allow their son to go
> > to prison without a trial??
> 
> That's what struck me about this affair, too. Other people have 
already
> provided some answers, like his family being dead or ashamed of 
their
> son, the mass murderer. Well, I don't want to declare him a tragic 
orphan,
> but his family rejecting him because of his crimes makes quite a 
lot of
> sense. It seems that no one except Dumbledore is actually helping 
him
> in GoF, maybe Lupin, but we don't really know it. Everyone still 
believes
> he's guilty, so the only family he has is Harry. Maybe we'll learn 
more
> about it once we get to know the old crowd, at least I hope so.
> 

Or, maybe at the time of the crimes, the Black family were not even 
allowed to see Sirius, either before or after he was sent to 
Azkaban.  Since this whole affair was handled so quickly and Sirius 
was bundled off to prison so fast, maybe his family didn't have time 
to get any help for him.  They may have found themselves in the 
position of having Ministry people listen politely to their pleas, 
with no intention of doing anything, because, after all, the Ministry 
knows Sirius is guilty, and, of course, if they just let the parents 
wail on a bit, eventually they'll go away.

And, once he escapes from Azkaban, Sirius' first concern is Harry.  
If he knows his family is still alive (would he know that?), he may 
want to stay out of contact because either he believes 1. that they 
think he's a murderer, and they'd turn him in if he showed up on 
their doorstep, or 2. that the Ministry will immediately start 
monitoring his family thinking that he might try to get in touch with 
them, and to keep both himself and them safe, he won't contact them 
and certainly won't try to see them at home.

Marianne





From brewpub44 at snet.net  Tue Apr  2 01:48:00 2002
From: brewpub44 at snet.net (brewpub44)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 01:48:00 -0000
Subject: Official Discussion Questions for the next Few Months: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <001601c1d92f$5acf2620$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a8b2kg+ujjg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37289

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
> Dr. Nel included a dozen or so discussion questions at the end of 
this book, and the Moderators have decided to have "official" 
discussions of one of these questions each week.  

I think this is a capital idea. A little directed discussion can be a 
good thing.

> 
> In GoF, Ron remarks, 'Percy loves rules,' and he wonders whether 
his brother would send a family member to Azkaban if it would advance 
his career (GoF, pg 463).  

I think this is the heart of this question, so I've <snipped> the 
rest. I think the crux of the matter is this:

Will Percy go against the grain of his own family?

It doesn't matter how ambitious he is, what he is planning to do with 
his life, how seriously he takes his career at the MoM. None of that 
is really relevant to that basic question. It would be the same 
question even if he pumped gas for a living.

Looking at the Weasleys (the adults, I think it's still too early to 
judge Ron or Ginny, but I do include Fred & George here), they are a 
good people. They are by no means perfect, but they are basically a 
good sort. They help people, they care about people, they get along 
with others, they jump in to help even when times are trying, and you 
can judge them solely by the company they keep.

So, why would Percy go against all of that family history? Why does 
anyone go against family customs, traditions, morals?

The whole key will be *how* he is convinced to turn against the 
family. What inroads could LV or others use to make him turn against 
his own family?

He doesn't seem to be an outcast amongst the Weasleys. I don't recall 
any moments when he is not treated with respect, at least from his 
parents. Even if they do pick on him, it is something shared by all 
(he is seen to participate in it as well).

He does care about his family, as is readily evident in the lake 
scene from GoF. Other than Fred & George, Ron gives him the least 
amount of respect, yet Percy is truly concerned for his welfare.

He has seen his father work at the Ministry for some time, so he has 
to at least have an inkling on how bureaucracy works, how silly it 
can be, just through osmosis from his father. So I don't quite see 
him being snowed by it.

He has already seen one of his superiors, Mr. Crouch, be taken over 
by the DEs, and also has seen the impacts of treachery against one's 
own family (from the example of both Crouches). So he is not naive to 
incompetence of management nor to the betrayal of family.

In line with that, I think he has also seen the problems of unfair 
trials, although the book doesn't necessarily say that Percy knows 
about Dumbledore's experiences at the trial of crouch (only Harry 
with the Pensieve saw that), I would have to assume that the word has 
gotten out about the Crouches.

He knows through Dumbledore (& his parents) that not all is well in 
the MoM, that the Dementors are bad, and that the DE's are on the 
prowl again.

Finally, he has shown that he can be counted on in times of trouble, 
witness the DE demonstrations at the World Cup. He shows loyalty & 
obedience to his father at that event.

I just don't see Percy betraying his family or their allegiances 
because of "rules". There would have to be a real good reason. The 
only way I can see that happening is if one of his family indeed 
commits a very harmful act, and I expect his perserverence & ability 
to stick to detail and hte letter of the law would enable him to see 
if it truly did happen, or at least be dubious until it is proven.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley





From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Tue Apr  2 02:08:50 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 02:08:50 -0000
Subject: The Troll Song (filk)
Message-ID: <a8b3ri+1qns@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37290

The Troll Song (from PS/SS, Chap 10)

(to the tune of The Trolley Song, from the 1944 musical film Meet Me 
in St. Louis) 

THE SCENE: The Great Hall, with Halloween festivities underway. 

HARRY
Midst the decorations set for Halloween
With my food piled high upon my plate
Then through the door came Quirrell, looking none-too-virile,
"A troll broke through our gate!"

RON
Dumble told the prefects, who secured each House,
For a troll's the deadliest of beasts.
As we left the feast, we thought "Herm's unreleased,
We'll warn her of the beast at least."

(On their way to warn Hermione, they run into the troll)

BOTH
Bang bang bang went the troll, he
"More more gore" went his yell
Churn, churn, churn went our tummies
Once we got downwind from his smell

Slam, slam, slam went the doorway
Run, run, run went our feet
Scream scream scream then went Hermy
We knew we had to retrace our retreat

HARRY
We ran back in and saw a sink
Getting knocked into the wall `gainst which Herm did shrink
I told her "Run!" but wasted breath
She couldn't move because it scared her half to death

(HARRY jumps on the troll's back, as RON's Wingardium spell knocks it 
out with its own club)

Jump, jump, jump on the troll, he
Swung, swung, swung with his pole
Swish, swish, flick now went Ron's wand 
And then it started to fall, and it was 12 feet tall, a limp soul
Spinning out of con-troll

.

(Enter McGonagall, looking angry)

RON
Her look was dark, her voice was cold
The mood of McGonagall a loss of points foretold
We two stood dumb, like perfect saps
But then Hermione spoke up, and took the rap.

HARRY
Blah, blah blah went the teachers
Uh, Uh, Uh went our plea
Please, please, please then went Hermy

(Hermione joins in the song)

TRIO
As we started to leave
We could only perceive a new trend
We'll our conflicts suspend
For we three are now friends who'll defend till the end 
Let us blend as allies, that's how wizards form ties!

  - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 





From boggles at earthlink.net  Tue Apr  2 02:25:32 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 20:25:32 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius a "pureblood"?
In-Reply-To: <a86ts2+vlhp@eGroups.com>
References: <a86ts2+vlhp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <p05010402b8cec182e3da@[66.32.51.188]>

No: HPFGUIDX 37291

At 12:02 PM +0000 3/31/02, grey_wolf_c wrote:
>We know for certain that James was a "pureblood" (that is, he came from
>a wizard family), that Lily came from a muggle family, that Ron's
>family is pure wizards, etc. However, I'm pretty unsure of Sirius'
>origins. Are his family wizards, muggles or both? (Please give as much
>canon as possible).

The short answer, of course, is We Don't Know.  Moreover, it's 
unlikely that Rowling is going to tell us, unless his family becomes 
a plot point later on.  Sounds like fanfic fodder to me . . . ;)

>To start you out, the only canon I could recall on the matter is
>Harry's letter to Siruius at the start of GoF,

Unless Sirius was not only from an at-least-part-Muggle family but 
from an uncommonly technologically oriented one, describing a 
computer that can be flung out a window in a fit of anger is only 
going to confuse him more.  At the time he went to Azkaban, personal 
computers were only beginning to become popular; most people's idea 
of a computer in 1981 would still have been something the size of a 
washer-and-dryer set.  Even a personal computer would have been 
awkward; while I could defenestrate the iMac in front of me, doing so 
with the Apple II I was using back in '81 would have been quite a 
strain.

Of course, Harry might well have explained computers to Sirius in a 
prior letter.  GoF 2 says that Sirius had sent two letters that 
summer; one would presume that Harry at least wrote brief notes back.

It seems to me that the motorcycle is better evidence.  As has been 
previously noted, it's not proof of anything; Arthur Weasley is a 
pureblood and he had the flying car, after all.  But Arthur has a 
fascination with Muggles and Muggle artifacts that Sirius has so far 
shown no sign of.  It seems slightly more probable to me that Sirius 
is a half-blood whose Muggle relatives introduced him to motorcycles, 
which he adopted as an insignia of his own coolness.  (Not that his 
being a half-blood need not mean that he has a Muggle parent; a 
Muggle-born one will do, for those who want him steeped completely in 
the wizard Warrior Ethic, and he can pick up the motorcycle from a 
cousin who saw _Easy Rider_ a few too many times.)


At 2:41 PM -0800 3/31/02, Dave Hardenbrook wrote:
>This is an interesting question about the nature of Sirius' family:
>What sort of family, Wizard or Muggle, would allow their son to go
>to prison without a trial??

As several others have pointed out, one that was dead or that thought 
he was guilty as sin would do.  However, one that was Imperiused 
would also work; perhaps Pettigrew covered his trail better than he's 
letting on.  Or perhaps he Memory Charmed them to forget it.

It's not clear how trials work in the wizarding world, anyway.  Of 
the Pensieve scenes, only one - Bagman's - appears to actually be a 
trial to determine guilt or innocence.  The one with the Lestranges 
appears to be a sentencing, since Mrs. Lestrange is making no 
pretense of innocence, and Karakoff's is only a hearing of some sort, 
as he's already been convicted.  If Sirius did get a trial, what 
would it look like?  Who would testify?  The Muggle witnesses were 
already Obliviated (and probably couldn't give valid testimony under 
wizard law anyway).  Peter was gone.  Would the Ministry officials 
who were first on the scene just present the evidence that was left?

-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!



From boggles at earthlink.net  Tue Apr  2 01:58:35 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 19:58:35 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names
In-Reply-To: <003d01c1d6a6$58495280$18fb9b3e@i7p8l9>
References: <1017309906.3119.95364.m12@yahoogroups.com>
 <003d01c1d6a6$58495280$18fb9b3e@i7p8l9>
Message-ID: <p05010401b8cebbd78ef0@[66.32.51.188]>

No: HPFGUIDX 37292

At 11:14 PM +0100 3/28/02, m.bockermann at t-online.de wrote:
>
>Now, here is the question: if Dumbledore is so eager to dispell the fear
>people have about calling the dark Lord by his name - why is he still using
>"Voldemort" at all?

Hmm.  Here's the relevant quote from Dumbledore, from CoS 18 (US edition):

"Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle. 
I taught him myself, fifty years ago, at Hogwarts.  He disappeared 
after leaving the school . . . travelled far and wide . . . sank so 
deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind, 
underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he 
resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognizable.  Hardly 
anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome boy who was 
once Head Boy here."

I tend to read that as saying that the Dark Lord left Hogwarts as Tom 
Riddle and returned as Lord Voldemort.  One of those "dangerous, 
magical transformations" might well have been magically changing his 
name (in some magic systems, I'd say his True Name) from "Tom Marvolo 
Riddle" to "Lord Voldemort".  Riddle's rant in chapter 17 seems to 
support this; he speaks of "fashion[ing] myself a new name" to 
replace the name of his Muggle father.  Tom Riddle is no more, only 
Lord Voldemort.  That also explains why even the wizards on "our" 
side occasionally call him "Lord Voldemort;" the "Lord" is now part 
of his name.  You couldn't, for example, Accio him by saying "Accio 
Tom Riddle;" you'd have to say "Accio Lord Voldemort" if you're still 
at the stage where you have to give the name of whatever you're 
Accioing.  (For you Star Wars fans, think Anakin Skywalker/Darth 
Vader here . . .)

We could check this by seeing what the Marauder's Map calls him, if 
only we ever saw the Map while he was on it . . .


At 9:09 PM +0000 4/1/02, finwitch wrote:
>Percy is short for Percival (by *Arthurian* legend! Maybe *Arthur*
>Weasley had just read the Muggle book and liked it - so he named his
>son after a character in it?)

He wouldn't need to "read the Muggle book".  Remember, Wizarding 
Britain's highest honor is called the Order of *Merlin*.  At least 
his portion of the Arthurian saga is well-known to the wizarding 
world.

Hmm . . . Arthur, William, Charles, Frederick, George . . . no wonder 
poor Ron feels like he's got too much to live up to; his father and 
all his brothers except Percy are named after kings!

-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!



From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Apr  2 02:35:22 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 02:35:22 -0000
Subject: Magic calorie-burning
In-Reply-To: <a88j2m+gtlm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8b5da+5nt5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37293

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> I guess we do have to assume that.  Hogwarts does seem to have an 
> awful lot of stairs and no elevatiors.  Plus, chasing after Blast-
> tailed skrewts and such in Hagrid's class is probably pretty good 
> cross-training too. :-)

Plus Harry & Co. do a lot of old-fashioned running.  They all seem 
to be in good physical conditioning.  Dragon wrestling seems about
the most stenuous task that needs doing.  JKR doesn't say much
about it, physical and mental exercise a la Yoga or something
must be going on. 

> In any case, when I originally had my "magic burns calories" idea,
I 
> wasn't thinking of wizard weight problems at all; I was thinking 
> about the First Law of Thermodynamics: energy can be converted from 
> one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.  It may 
> be just the engineering geek in me coming to the surface, but I
like 
> to think that magic doesn't just ignore the laws of physics -- it 
> has to work within them, but using totally different methods and 
> principles than science does.  So to cast a spell, potential energy 
> must be converted to kinetic/magical energy, and since there's no 
> evidence that wizards draw potential energy from an external
source, 
> I assume it must come from the spell-caster him/herself.

The UFO people like to talk about "zero-point energy," which
smacks of perpetual motion, but NASA has a web page on it.
Kenetic energy might be obtained from body fat, but some curses
might not need a lot of energy. Take the UC's for example.  
AK or Cruciatus would just require the tweaking of a few protien 
molecules.  The right mix of laser light might do it.  Imperius 
sounds in Harry's experience like plain old hypnosis, again
only the tweaking of molecules.

Transfiguration, on the other hand, seems routinely to change the 
mass of the target.  When Wormtail turns into a rat, all that human
body mass has to go someplace, and it must be gotten back when 
he changes back to Pttigrew.

JKR doesn't tell us how magic works.  If she did, it would
be technology, and the series would be science fiction, not
fantasy.  She might even be writing grant proposals and patent
applications instead of stories.

Tex





From kerelsen at quik.com  Tue Apr  2 03:31:58 2002
From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 22:31:58 -0500
Subject: [Names/kingship connections
References: <1017309906.3119.95364.m12@yahoogroups.com> <003d01c1d6a6$58495280$18fb9b3e@i7p8l9> <p05010401b8cebbd78ef0@[66.32.51.188]>
Message-ID: <002c01c1d9f6$f46f4680$d421b0d8@kerelsen>

No: HPFGUIDX 37294


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jennifer Boggess Ramon" <boggles at earthlink.net>


> Hmm . . . Arthur, William, Charles, Frederick, George . . . no
wonder
> poor Ron feels like he's got too much to live up to; his father
and
> all his brothers except Percy are named after kings!

Actually, Percy is also a King's name... a fictional one, but
then so is Arthur!  (I know, shut up with the Wolfram's PARZIVAL
connections, already, Bernadette! *grin*).   I haven't had any
luck finding any kind of connection to kingship with the name
Ronald... the closest I can get is Roland--but he _was_ a
knight--which reinforces the whole Ronald as a
knight/protector/defender of Harry theme.

And if Ginny's full name is actually Virginia, there's a
connection to Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen... Even Harry's name
is a "king" name.  While we don't know if Harry is short for
Harold, or the nickname for Henry, both were Kings in England,
one Saxon, one Tudor.

One thing that has been running through my head while reading the
Harry Potter books is the old idea that every seven years is a
special anniversary year.  One of the anniversary year things
I've read about was the idea of the sacrificial King cycle where
every seven years, the King or a willing substitute spills his
blood to renew the land and refresh the kingdom.  (OT:Katherine
Kurtz played with this theme in LAMMAS NIGHT.) Is it possible
that Harry Potter is the equivalent of the Sacred King whose
sacrifice (either of self or of a willing substitute) will save
the Wizarding world... Could it be that Ron will be Harry's
willing substitute in the end? And--oh my!--I just thought of
another connection... If I've got the math right (no promises on
that!) in the fourteenth year since Voldemort was initially
deafeated by Harry, Wormtail did the spell to give him a body
back.  "Flesh of the servant, willingly given.  Blood of the
enemy..."  A corrupted form of the Sacred King sacrifice...
Hmmmm.  I need to think more on this one too.

Bernadette

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).




From ohtoresonate at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 04:01:58 2002
From: ohtoresonate at yahoo.com (ohtoresonate)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 04:01:58 -0000
Subject: Names
In-Reply-To: <p05010401b8cebbd78ef0@[66.32.51.188]>
Message-ID: <a8bafm+5ljo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37295

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon <boggles at e...> 
wrote:

<snippage>

> Hmm . . . Arthur, William, Charles, Frederick, George . . . no 
> wonder poor Ron feels like he's got too much to live up to; his 
> father and all his brothers except Percy are named after kings!

And a sister whose name, if not short for Virginia (for the 
Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I), could be short for Regina, which is Latin 
for queen (source: http://www.behindthename.com/nm/r2.html).

Of course, if it turns out that Ginny is short for Ginger...

:) OTR
                 


          




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Tue Apr  2 04:53:20 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 2 Apr 2002 04:53:20 -0000
Subject: File - VFAQ.htm 
Message-ID: <1017723200.160699093.42665.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37296

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020402/8c955195/attachment.html>

From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Tue Apr  2 04:53:20 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 2 Apr 2002 04:53:20 -0000
Subject: File - hbfile.html 
Message-ID: <1017723200.160699896.42665.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37297

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020402/ebef138c/attachment.html>

From uncmark at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 05:08:56 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 05:08:56 -0000
Subject: Percy's Character Flaw  (was:Re: Official Discussion Questions ...: Question #1)
In-Reply-To: <a8av33+64u4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8bed8+u3ib@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37298

In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
> In GoF, Ron remarks, 'Percy loves rules,' and he wonders whether 
> his brother would send a family member to Azkaban if it would 
> advance his career (GoF, pg 463).  Does his tendency to side with 
> bureaucracy make Percy susceptible to the same sorts of errors made 
> by Cornelius Fudge and Barty Crouch, Sr., errors that ultimately 
>(if unintentionally) help Lord Voldemort?  Might we expect him - 
> albeit unwillingly - to aid Voldemort by following the letter of 
> the law instead of its spirit?  Will he side with Crouch or with 
his family?>

In HPforGrownups at y..., "scaryfairymary" <scaryfairymary at h...> wrote:
> Well, I hate to play devil's advocate here but..... Percy HAS to be 
> EVIL.  I really havn't been able to warm to his character at all 
>(not for lack of trying!) He really is very very power hungry 
> ("Prefects Who Gained Power") and I don't hold up much hope for his 
> redemption.  From his sheep like following of Crouch Sr. to his 
> mere lack of ability to 'let his hair down' he really hasn't shown 
> any ability to survive in the real world, let alone in a war 
> situation. 

Excuse Me? I'm not overly fond of Percy either, but I am of the 
Weasley's... and I can understand his motivations.

Bill and Charlie both did well at Hogwart's and Percy worked his best 
to keep up to the family honor. Plus he's a middle child and want to 
stand out. Prefect AND Head Boy (I think Bill or Charlie did similar) 
His job must have seemed like a dream come true. He was the personal 
assistant of one of the leading wizards in Britain! Through no fault 
of his own he suddenly becomes the acting head of the Department of 
International Magical Coorperation. Pretty good for 18!

Agreed he probably has more ambition than his Dad, but the sorting 
Hat DID place him in Gryffindor! He NEVER acted dishonest or 
approaching evil. Plus he did very well in NOT showing favoritism to 
Harry, the boy who saved his sister's life!

He's going to face a TOUGH summer after GoF.  Would Fudge even want 
him as an ally? A 19yo wizard who took control of a Ministry Office 
under suspicious circumstances? 

Fudge may decide to destroy Percy just to spite Dumbledore. "Well, I 
missed Crouch's jailbreak conspiracy and murder, but I'm tough on 
crime! See? I caught his son who killed him and here's the kid that 
took over his office!"

If given the choice, I could NOT see Percy picking Fudge over his 
family! He is SERIOUSLY dissillusioned after fawning over a top 
wizard who committed jailbreak and Unforgivable curses. With the 
upbringing of Arthur and Molly, I couldn't see ANY of the Weasley's 
going bad.

Uncmark




From Demeter918 at AOL.com  Tue Apr  2 05:12:39 2002
From: Demeter918 at AOL.com (demeter918)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 05:12:39 -0000
Subject: Introduction + Re: Percy's Character Flaw 
In-Reply-To: <a8av33+64u4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8bek7+vc2c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37299


  It's always more interesting to have someone play devil's advocate 
anyway. ^__^

   And now would be a good time to introduce myself. Name's Demeter. 
Currently a student in college. I've been here for a while; I just 
didn't really have the time to comb through the archives and etc. But 
through Spring Break and several uninterrupted hours, got a basic 
piece of everything. And I had thought me and my friends had ripped 
the books apart already. Looks like I've got a lot to study. ^__^  

   I guess I should establish my current loyalty lines (not really as 
strigent as it sounds) right now. I'm a very fervent Slytherin fan... 
and not just for Draco Malfoy. My absolute favorite character is 
Severus Snape (which says a bit about my character). Followed by 
Percy Weasley (hence the response to below post), Neville Longbottom 
and Draco Malfoy are at about the same place. Remus Lupin, then 
Minerva McGonagall, Albus Dumbledore (though his biased ways toward 
Slytherins tend to annoy me), Hermione Granger and Ginny Weasley. 

   I tend to like all the characters except for Sirius Black and Ron 
Weasley. I actually *do* like them, since I sympathize with Sirius, 
and I feel that Ron's one of the most loyal friends you can have (of 
course *pauses* excepting the situation in GoF), it's just that they 
have a tendency to piss me off. Sirius because he's a prat toward 
Severus. And Ron because he and Sev/Draco/anySlytherin tend to not 
get along. For that, even if the Slytherins goad him, it takes two to 
have an argument. 

   And that over with... back to the discussion. 

 
>   Well, I hate to play devil's advocate here but..... Percy HAS to 
>be EVIL.  I really havn't been able to warm to his character at all  
>(not for lack of trying!) He really is very very power hungry        
>("Prefects 
> Who Gained Power") and I don't hold up much hope for his 
redemption.  


    Ambition can't really be equated with evil. Because if it is, 
then Dumbledore can be equated with evil and he's as far from 
conventional evil as anyone can be. BTW, this is entirely my own 
opinion and theories. ^__^ There's nothing I claim to be entirely 
canon here. 

    Gaining power and being power hungry can be the same thing, but 
it can also mean different things. Power has a tendency to mean 
money... or at least more money then a desk job at some faceless 
corporate company. Even though Percy is belittled by family and 
classmates alike, he's very loyal to his family. In GoF when Ron's 
pulled out, he comes running to help him, his face 'paler then usual' 
(also mentioned earlier). I've always seen that as a suggestion that 
Percy cares more for his family then his family thinks he does. 

    Perhaps Percy equates power with money. If he had the money, he 
could help his family the way he wants to. This is all theoretical 
though. Feel free to dispute it. ^__^


> From his sheep like following of Crouch Sr. to his mere lack of 
> ability to 'let his hair down' he really hasn't shown any ability 
to 
> survive in the real world, let alone in a war situation. 

    Of all the Weasley kids, perhaps Percy is the one (excluding Mr 
and Mrs Weasley) who would know best about surviving a war situation. 
This theory is based off what I've read of Cairnsy's essays and the 
calculation of age during the war and all the stuff at the Lexicon 
(wonderful place btw... but I bet you all know that already. ^__^). 
If during Harry's third year, Percy as at his Seventh (and this is 
canon, no disputes), then that means Percy is roughly about four 
years older then Harry. That means, during the hieght of the war, 
before and right before the Potter's deaths at Godric's Hollow, that 
Percy was about five. 

   It's been brought up before that perhaps the generation at and 
around Percy's age suffered the most by the war. The twins, Ron, and 
Ginny were too young to really comprehend the danger, since they were 
two and one and just born, respectively. But Percy, Bill, and Charlie 
were all at the age they knew and understood about the war and 
the 'baddies' that haunted the dark and would hurt them if they 
weren't careful. 

   But seeing Bill and Charlie's disposition, it can be theorized 
that they felt relatively safe, since they were at Hogwarts. I'm 
assuming that there's an age gap of nine years (these numbers are 
from the Lexicon Master Time Line. There can't be absolute certainty, 
since none of the numbers are actually given in the books, but 
there's enough evidence so that most can be relatively certain) 
between Percy and Charlie. I'm pretty sure that Bill's older then 
Charlie, and so the two attended Hogwarts while Percy was at home 
with his parents. 

   However, of all the Weasley's, Percy's entire manner and 
personality is the most different. Why? Could it be because he 
couldn't be oblivious, yet he wasn't safe at Hogwarts either? He was 
the oldest, since both Charlie and Bill were at Hogwarts, which means 
that Molly probably depended on him to 'look out for his younger 
brothers and help out so the bad guys won't come and hurt them'. Why 
*is* Percy so serious? Because he was brought up to believe that if 
he wasn't then he might not be able to survive to the next day? 

    Growing up as a child, adolescent, adult during a war are all 
different things. For Percy, that might have been the defining point 
in his personality. 


I remember a 
> quote from Prof. Quirrel in PS along the lines of;
>  "Theres no good or Evil, just power and those too weak to seek it"
> (I lent my copy of PS to my brother so havent got the exact quote 
so 
> my apologies)IMO, this quote really sums up Percy's philosophy in 
> life. 

   And you have to wonder what made Professor Quirrel say that. It's 
canon that suggests that Quirrel was fine until he took that year off 
to get 'first-hand experience'. (70/71 SS/PS) So in that year, 
something changed. So I'm of the opinion, unless Percy meets up with 
that situation, he won't be able to be like Quirrel. And besides, it 
seems that Quirrel doesn't have the large family that Percy does. 
Percy's already suggested that he cares for his family more then he 
does about his dignity.

   If he's given the choice, he'll probably in the end, choose his 
family to the 'evil'. 


In OP he will be overcome by a desire for Power and a monstrous 
> lack of vision, and end up(intentionally or otherwise) either 
aiding 
> th Dark Side or hindering the Old Crowd in some way.  

    I doubt it. Dumbledore didn't make him Head Boy for no reason. 
And before Tom Riddle is suggested, Dumbledore wasn't Headmaster 
then. He was the transfiguration professor (312 CS). 

    And the desire for power may still be in a way influenced to help 
his family. Everyone desires power for different reasons. Which is 
why I pity Voldemort. He's basically in it for revenge against the 
muggle father who put  him into the muggle orphanage. *sigh*


Perhaps he will 
> get suspicious of his father in the Ministry and report him to 
> Fudge?  I have *no* faith in his ability to see the wood from the 
> trees when it comes to Power and his quest for it.
> 

   Once again, I personally believe he cares for his family and if he 
does do something that's ultimately 'bad' for the Order, it would be 
because he *believes* that it's helping instead. If the theory that 
he grew up having to 'watch and becareful', then he would be 
naturally cautious.  


>   The only example of Percy acting as if he is proud of a family 
> member is when Ron is being praised by Dumbledore for "the best 
game 
> of chess..." at the end of PS.  Even here I doubt his if he is 
being 
> genuine.  I see it as an attention seeking exercise on his part, 
not 
> allowing Ron to be the very centre of attention for even a second, 
he 
> attempts to steal glory by association.  Maybe he is just very 
> insecure (caused by the death of an older sibling perhaps??!!!:P) 
but 
> I cant see how he is going to possibly avoid getting himself, and 
> others, into trouble.
> 

   Perhaps Percy will cause trouble. Perhaps he'll betray his family. 
Perhaps a lot of negative things. But in the end, it's my opinion 
that he did it for his family. If he ever does 'anything'. 


>  -Mary (who is waiting to feel the toaster flying at her from 
> somewhere in the distance!! I'm sorry...I just don't like Percy!)

   
   It's perfectly alright not to like Percy! I don't particularly 
care for either Sirius or Ron, but since they have qualities that are 
still very endearing, I still appreciate them. There are few 
characters in the HP world that I don't like...

   Anyway, so I'm here now! And I've gotten my teeth stuck on this, 
so I won't be leaving anytime soon. But I'm more lurker then not. 
^__^ It depends on what the current discussion is about. 

   Demeter




From catlady at wicca.net  Tue Apr  2 06:03:19 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 06:03:19 -0000
Subject: Ends & Means  / Weasleys - incl. Percy / 
Message-ID: <a8bhj7+3i39@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37300

Abigail Draconi Chyna Rose wrote:

> Who in the Potterverse fighting for the side of good would 
> *willingly* use the same magic as those on the side of evil 
> (such as a group called the `moral "majority"' hacking into an 
> `offensive' group list)? And in doing so, would they still be 
> 'good'?

Well. Umm. There is a lot of not-nice behavior that is considered 
downright heroic in certain extreme circumstances. Killing people is 
generally considered bad behavior, but if Wormtail had his wand drawn 
and was about to Avada Kedavra one of the school kids, and you flung 
yourself upon him biting and punching, in order to stop him, and he 
ended up dead as a result of the biting and punching, you would be 
considered a hero for having saved the kid, not a villain for having 
killed a person.

And I left the bit about hacking in the quote, despite me not wanting 
to stir up yet more controversy about the level of taste of that 
April Foolishness, because hacking into someone's private files in 
order to learn their private information is generally considered bad 
behavior, but it's considered very good behavior when the private 
information is the plans for an upcoming violent crime (bank robbery, 
airplane hijacking, etc) and the information is turned over to the 
appropriate authorities in time to prevent the violence.

Athena wrote:
> Bill... Charlie... David?... Percy... Fred... George...
> Yes, I know that Percy wouldn't follow the naming scheme, nor would
> Ron. Here's my slight modification to allow for that. Possibly, 
> Molly preferred Percy as a name to "Edward" and the family started 
> to call Percy by his middle name. 

Barbara Jebenstreit wrote:
> Besides, we know that Ron is short for Ronald... at some time an 
> angry Molly calls him that, IIRC. Can't remember where, exactly,
> but it supports the idea that the Weasleys are not using each
> others full name.

Abby wrote:
> couldn't Bill also be short for William (or something like it)?
> It just messes up the whole thing... 

Liz Sager wrote:
> I think its a fandom assumption (by some, anyway) that Ginny is 
> short for Virginia.

Boggles wrote:
> Hmm . . . Arthur, William, Charles, Frederick, George . . . no 
> wonder poor Ron feels like he's got too much to live up to; his 
> father and all his brothers except Percy are named after kings!

Bernadette wrote:
> Actually, Percy is also a King's name... a fictional one, but 
> then so is Arthur!
> Even Harry's name is a "king" name. While we don't know if Harry
> is short for Harold, or the nickname for Henry, both were Kings in 
> England, one Saxon, one Tudor.

Personally, I believe that Bill is short for Bilius. I believe he was 
named for his Uncle Bilius, who saw a Grim and died twenty-four hours 
later. If Bilius died when he and his sibling were young, it would 
make sense for the sibling to name hiser first child after the late 
brother. 

I think it was Arthur who was Bilius's sibling, reflecting the 
previous generation using the alphabetic system including the vowels. 
However, that would make Arthur the oldest, therefore not a seventh 
son, therefore Ron would not be the seventh son of a seventh son. 

It seems to me that Arthur is the oldest of his siblings, because I 
thought that the Burrow was the Weasley family ancestral home. Does 
anyone know whether the Burrow is the Weasley ancestral home, or just 
some place that Arthur and Molly bought to have room for all the kids?

I don't remember Molly calling Ron 'Ronald', but Dumbledore did. 
PS/SS, about the Mirror of Erised, Dumbledore said: "You, who have 
never known your family, see them standing around you. Ronald 
Weasley, who has always been overshadowed by his brothers, sees 
himself standing alone, the best of all of them." 

But at the end of the adventure: "I believe your friends Misters Fred 
and George Weasley were responsible for trying to send you a toilet 
seat." If we can take what Dumbledore calls students as their names, 
than Fred is Fred, not short for Frederick or Alfred. (Btw IIRC 
'Alfred' means 'advised by elves' so it is a much nicer name than it 
sounds.)

I've always liked the idea that there was an alphabetic naming system 
for the Weasleys, but I preferred to think that the litter we know 
were named for the consonants in alphabetical order. Then Percy would 
have the name that started with a D, which might have been Dumbledore 
in honor of Albus, and Percy might have insisted on being called by 
his middle name because he HATED the nickname Dumbo. But Ron and 
Ginny show no signs of fitting that system, H and J. Especially when 
it would have been so easy to call her Jinny! 

If it were Percy who had the name that started with D, then there 
wouldn't be a missing child whose name started with D. However, if 
the system included vowels and there was a D who was lost, so that 
Percy was supposed to be E, the parents might have dropped the system 
in their grief.

Other than Bilius by my preference and Ronald by Dumbledore's words, 
I like to think all those Weasley kids really are named what we call 
them, Charlie not short for Charles, Ginny not short for Genevere or 
Iphigenia. I can't think of a name that starts with J that would have 
Ginny as a nickname. 

Anyway, Ron may not have the same name as a king, but he does have 
the same name as a President. Perceval may have been a fictional king 
but the Percy family (surname) were the Earls of Northumberland and 
just as powerful as if they had been kings. Harry's name is Harry, 
not short for anything (JKR said so in an interview) but nonetheless 
counts (to me) as being named after Henry V: "For England, Harry, and 
St. George!"

Unc Mark wrote:
> Bill and Charlie both did well at Hogwart's and Percy worked his 
> best to keep up to the family honor. Plus he's a middle child and 
> want to stand out. Prefect AND Head Boy (I think Bill or Charlie
> did similar)  

Bill was Head Boy. Charlie was Quidditch Captain (of the Cup-champion 
team). It has occurred to me that if Bill was born the month after 
the age cut-off (e.g. in September if the deadline is that you have 
to turn 11 by or on September 1 to be a Hogwarts first-year) and 
Charlie was born 11 months later (August if Bill was September), they 
could have been in the same year at school despite not being twins. 
That would give them the advantage of having a familiar family member 
right there in the same dorm when they went away to school and the 
disadvantage of having to compete with each other. So it would make 
sense for them to reduce the competition by choosing different 
fields: schoolwork and Head Boy for Bill, sports and Quidditch 
Captain for Charlie.

Anyway, when Percy was a Hogwarts first-year, even Charlie had been 
out of Hogwarts for a year already. Percy was all alone in this big 
school for two years, until the twins started. If Bill and Charlie 
were in the same year, then Percy was the only one of the flock who 
had to be in school alone. Being alone could have been scary and he 
could have sought acheivements as an antidote to fear.

Finwitch wrote:

> And... I think Sirius *was* pureblood. I think he lived next door,
> if not same building to Potters'. Sirius and James were friends and
> bloodbrothers. Sirius may never have known his father, and found 
> James' father as father-figure.

Interesting. I, too, have been thinking that Sirius may never have 
known his father, and found James's parents as parent-figures. 
What is it about Sirius that gives the idea of fatherlessness? 
However, I have also been thinking that James and Sirius didn't know 
each other until they met at Hogwarts, and *then* Sirius spent all 
the school holidays with James's family. I was thinking that maybe 
Sirius's mother (I like to name her Scylla) was a professional 
broomstick racer who lived out of a suitcase and dragged her little 
kid all over the world with her. But then I was wondering if he would 
have grown up to be that carefree boy with laughter in his eyes, NOT 
carrying a load of bitterness in those days, from a childhood like 
that.  




From westmerd at health.qld.gov.au  Tue Apr  2 01:36:22 2002
From: westmerd at health.qld.gov.au (Debbie Westmerland)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 11:36:22 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy's Character Flaw 
Message-ID: <sca997c8.008@HEALTH-ES2.HEALTH.QLD.GOV.AU>

No: HPFGUIDX 37301

Wouldn't it be really weird if Percy was the cause of a sibling's death. That would IMHO be a reason why he always plays by the rules, maybe when he was young, he broke the rules and his brother died because of it.

Debbie





From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Tue Apr  2 02:24:10 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 02:24:10 -0000
Subject: Hair and Beauty in the Wizarding World
In-Reply-To: <a8aun4+5jfn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8b4oa+ireu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37302

In a previous post, I wrote:

"I'd imagine this to be true, too. She can't possibly be spending 
> three hours to get her hair under control on a daily basis. 
> Besides, Rita Skeeter described her as pretty or attractive or 
> something with her hair all wild anyway, and Krum found her 
> attractive enough to ask her out, and Ron is obviously smitten. I 
> don't think Hermione needs to fuss with hair potion to be 
pretty."

And Finwich responded with:

"None does, IMO."

and then later, with:

"I prefer simple dressing. I can't think a witch would want 
makeup... Colour-changing spells etc."

But, unfortunately (or understandably) in the Potterworld, physical 
attractiveness does play a role in finding a mate--the Veela for 
example.  And Harry is attracted to Cho, not only because she's 
smart and a good quiddich player, but also because she's 
*pretty*, and like any adolescent boy, he and Ron get kudos from 
their peers by being able to get "the prettiest girls in the school" 
as their dates for the ball.  Lupin's shabby robes were under 
criticism, Bill wears and earring for decoration, and Hermione 
also felt the need to shrink her teeth and fix her hair (at least for 
that one occasion), so it doesn't seem to be a totally 
"come-as-you-are" environment.

Finwich also wrote:

"They're as different as Muggles, I think. Anyway, how can you tell 
with all those loosely hanging ropes? Arthur Weasley doesn't 
exercise much (and was in bad shape, not quite managing his 
breath after the walk).."

True, but no matter how loose the robes are, at some point, 
we're all seen without them!  Maybe that's who Snape's love in 
the series will be, the exercise coach Dumbledore hires on to 
whip all their flabby butts into shape, lol.

Rita







From Demeter918 at AOL.com  Tue Apr  2 08:06:35 2002
From: Demeter918 at AOL.com (demeter918)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 08:06:35 -0000
Subject: That's an interesting theory --> Re: Percy's Character Flaw
In-Reply-To: <sca997c8.008@HEALTH-ES2.HEALTH.QLD.GOV.AU>
Message-ID: <a8boqb+f9p3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37303

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Debbie Westmerland" <westmerd at h...> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be really weird if Percy was the cause of a sibling's 
death. That would IMHO be a reason why he always plays by the rules, 
maybe when he was young, he broke the rules and his brother died 
because of it.
> 
> Debbie


   That plays off the theory that perhaps Percy was told endlessly 
that if he didn't behave, if he didn't follow the rules, if he didn't 
follow all the rules, then one of his little siblings would die. And 
so would 'mummy' and himself. Pretty scary stuff for a five-year old. 

   And with that huge age-gap between him and Charlie, there's a 
definite possibility for a kid in there. And it would make sense. Why 
else would the have Bill, then Charlie, and then suddenly no kids for 
nine years before Percy?

   There's a fic written by A'jes' Blue that deals with that 
possibility. 

   Demeter






From alina at distantplace.net  Tue Apr  2 08:03:03 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:03:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names/Ginny
References: <1017309906.3119.95364.m12@yahoogroups.com> <003d01c1d6a6$58495280$18fb9b3e@i7p8l9> <p05010401b8cebbd78ef0@[66.32.51.188]>
Message-ID: <004401c1da1c$d1824700$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37304

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jennifer Boggess Ramon 
  Hmm . . . Arthur, William, Charles, Frederick, George . . . no wonder 
  poor Ron feels like he's got too much to live up to; his father and 
  all his brothers except Percy are named after kings!


That's it! Ginny isn't short for Virginia, it's short for Regina, which means Queen in latin! Even Percival can fit the system, being a knight of the round table, he's not too far off from a throne. Now, is there any royalty called Ronald? 

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails








From mi_shell16 at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  2 07:38:55 2002
From: mi_shell16 at hotmail.com (theresnothingtoit)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 07:38:55 -0000
Subject: Name scheme and Missing Weasley Children
In-Reply-To: <003d01c1d9ba$bd3cafe0$3d429fc1@i7p8l9>
Message-ID: <a8bn6f+vgim@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37305

Hello all
It would make sense if Rons real name was Harry because then the 
three main characters names would begin with the letter H not to 
mention Hogwarts, Hedwig and Hagrid.  Letters seem to be important to 
Mrs Weasly, sending her sons jumpers each christmas with their 
initial on it.  Perhaps in the future something will happen to Mrs 
Weasly and she will send Ron an H jumper and make one for the 
mysterious D brother (or sister).  And talking of sisters and keeping 
on the alphabet theme could Ginny be a shortened form of Imogen?
luv
theresnothingtoit





From j-lipton at nwu.edu  Tue Apr  2 09:30:36 2002
From: j-lipton at nwu.edu (Jamie Lipton)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:30:36 -0600
Subject: More name schemes
Message-ID: <007101c1da29$0bbf8660$03fea8c0@death-computer>

No: HPFGUIDX 37306

Personally, I agree with Abby, who wrote:

"As we know that Ron is short for Ronald, couldn't Bill also be short for
William (or something like it)?  It just messes up the whole thing...
W, C, F, G, P, R..?  Ack!  If Bill really is short for William, only
3 of the six boys would fit the theory.
Although, William Weasley would be another to add to the alliteration
list. But I really want there to be a missing Weasley!"

Assuming that Bill really is just Bill, and Percy goes by his middle name,
maybe the the break in the Weasley name scheme is indicative of when the
missing child died or went missing or otherwise ceased to be a part of the
household.  Theory: Sometime between the twins' birth and Ron's, little D.
Weasley disappeared and it was just devastating to Arthur and Molly.  When
Ron was born, they didn't give him an H name, because to continue the
pattern would just be an exercise in futility, now that D. Weasley was no
more.  Ron and Ginny (who also doesn't fit the pattern) may not even know
about D. Weasley.  It's all very sad.

Also - I maintain that Sirius is pureblood, maybe half-blood, although I can
see the evidence that he might be muggle-born.  My support for my position?
His name is Sirius, for crying out loud!  What muggle would name their kid
that?  In my mind, there are two kinds of names in the Potterverse: 'normal'
and 'weird.'  A lot of the 'weird' names seem to end in -us and sound Latin:
Sirius, Remus, Filius, Rubeus, Cornelius, Argus (a squib, but not
muggle-born), Albus, Severus, Lucius.  I like to think that people with
those kinds of names are pureblood or halfblood, although I can't support
that, and there are muggle-born characters with 'weird' names (Hermione -
but that's "not weird, just Greek") and pureblood characters with 'normal'
names (James Potter, Gregory Goyle).

- Jamie






From monika at darwin.inka.de  Tue Apr  2 13:09:45 2002
From: monika at darwin.inka.de (Monika Huebner)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:09:45 +0200
Subject: [HPforGrownups]  Machiavellian Means and the Side of Good/Sirius a "pureblood"?
In-Reply-To: <29229670653.20020401160559@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <MABBIOAJAKBIIEFEFANKEEJKDAAA.monika@darwin.inka.de>

No: HPFGUIDX 37307


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susanne [mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net]
> Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: [BanHarryPotterNow!] Machiavellian Means

I wrote:

> > When Sirius told Harry about Crouch in the cave scene, I
> > didn't get the impression that he agreed with his giving permission
> > to use the killing curse on supposed Death Eaters, and he probably
> > wouldn't join someone who would. Nor would Lupin, IMO.

Susanne wrote:

> But wasn't Sirius getting ready to use the killing curse on
> Peter Pettigrew?
> At least that's how I understood it.
> 
> So, while he sounded disapproving of Crouch using violence
> against violence, he was prepared to do the exact same
> thing in PP's case.

Well, yes, I agree that the outcome would have been similar,
but the situation was IMO not. Sirius had just spent 12 years in 
Azkaban, one of the most horrible dungeons one can imagine,
after his best friends had been murdered by an evil wizard,
betrayed by someone he had thought was a friend. *And* Sirius
feels responsible for it because he was the one who talked the
Potters into naming Peter Pettigrew their Secret-Keeper. My
point is *not* that this justifies killing Pettigrew, but that Sirius
is, well, mentally unstable after his ordeal. I believe he is
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, he fits all the
criteria, and it explains his violent behavior in PoA. Anyone can
see he's a physical and emotional wreck, and he only has
very limited control over his reactions. By the time of GoF,
he has recovered and calmed down a bit, and he sees things
under a different light. I don't know what would happen if he
suddenly came face to face with Pettigrew, but I think he won't
actively search for him now. And I definitely don't believe that
for him, the ends always justify the means, at least not in his
normal state of mind.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kiricat2001 [mailto:Zarleycat at aol.com]
> Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius a "pureblood"?

> Or, maybe at the time of the crimes, the Black family were not even 
> allowed to see Sirius, either before or after he was sent to 
> Azkaban.  Since this whole affair was handled so quickly and Sirius 
> was bundled off to prison so fast, maybe his family didn't have time 
> to get any help for him. 

If that was the case, wouldn't they have contacted him after his
escape from Azkaban? If they haven't died in the meantime, of
course. Even if Sirius himself would think it was too dangerous
to contact *them*, I believe they would have tried to contact *him*,
don't you think so? His photos in the Daily Prophet clearly showed
that he wasn't in the best condition, but we only know that he's in
contact with Dumbledore after the events of PoA. It doesn't really
make a lot of sense. Either they must be dead or still believe he's
guilty
> 
> And, once he escapes from Azkaban, Sirius' first concern is Harry.  
> If he knows his family is still alive (would he know that?)

I don't think he would know, at least not immediately. It would take him
some time to find out. I think if you are in Azkaban, you're somehow
buried alive. I don't think Fudge (or any other ministry wizard) inspects
Azkaban often and talks to the convicts. Fudge giving Sirius his newspaper
surely wasn't a common thing, maybe it just happened because he was
so shocked about Sirius being able to speak coherently. But in general,
I don't think the prisoners have any contact at all with the outside world.

Monika







From kerelsen at quik.com  Tue Apr  2 13:35:16 2002
From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 08:35:16 -0500
Subject: "Missing" Weasley Children
Message-ID: <007901c1da4b$3aacf3a0$2621b0d8@kerelsen>

No: HPFGUIDX 37308

I know that we're having a lot of fun speculating horrible
reasons for that nine year gap between the oldest two Weasley
children and Percy, but has anyone thought that maybe one reason
for that is that Arthur might not have been home to conceive a
child during that time?

For those who have been discussing the possibility of Arthur
having been under an Imperius curse at some time--what if
whatever he did got him time in Azkaban (Shudder!).

Or, if he were an Auror, what if his work took him away from home
a lot?  To conceive you've got to be there at just the right
time!  In WWII, my grandfather didn't see his wife for three
years except for a brief period of leave sometime in the middle
of the war (he wasn't a soldier, he was a chemist working on a
fuels project that meant he had to be isolated in a place where
thet top secret work was being done for the duration).  Going by
things my grandmother told me, it wasn't through lack of trying
that they didn't end up with a sibling for my father!

And finally, what if it were the case that Molly had
miscarriages?  I have a friend who has eight kids... and has a
similar 9 year gap between two of them... she had six
miscarriages during that time.  It happens.  And maybe there
might have been a more sinister reason behind them... or not.

And finally, maybe they chose not to try to have more children at
that point in the VWI because they didn't want to bring more kids
into the world while it was so bad, and Percy was conceived
during a period when it looked as if things were improving.  Or
he could have been a "oops!" child.

All this, of course, is just my opinion.  :)  Worth the knuts you
paid for it!

Bernadette

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).




From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Tue Apr  2 14:22:18 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:22:18 -0000
Subject: Percy's Character Flaw
In-Reply-To: <a8boqb+f9p3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8ceqq+nin6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37309

Hi, all!

Demeter answered Debbie:
>
>    That plays off the theory that perhaps Percy was told endlessly
> that if he didn't behave, if he didn't follow the rules, if he didn't
> follow all the rules, then one of his little siblings would die. And
> so would 'mummy' and himself. Pretty scary stuff for a five-year old.
>

Actually, that's a slightly different theory than the one in A'jes'
Blue's fic, "In This World of Strangers: Catharsis." It sounds to me
like this particular theory subscribes to the idea that the "gap" has
to do with the war against Voldemort, and that the Weasleys were in
hiding for a while. That theory suggests there is no other child--that
Arthur or Molly or both were too busy fighting and/or staying alive to
make babies, and inadvertently put a lot of pressure on Percy to watch
his siblings.

In A'jes' Blue's fic, Arthur and Molly don't traumatize him about
following the rules at all. He comes to the conclusions about rules
himself, after the death of an older brother (Erec) born between
Charlie and Percy.

Other than Charlie's winning the cup 7 years prior to PoA, and a
comment Bill makes about coming back to Hogwarts for the first time in
5 years, we don't know anything about their ages. A'jes' Blue decided
to pair all the children, so that they broke into groups of two kids
no more than a year or two apart. Bill and Charlie. Erec and Percy.
Fred and George. Ron and Ginny. (Interestingly, she did all this
because she wanted Ron to be a seventh son, so "Ron is a Seer" fans,
take note.)

In her fic, Percy has some separation trouble when Erec goes to school
for the first time at the age of 5 (Percy is 4). He doesn't exactly
understand where Erec is, and sneaks off (breaking a major rule) to go
looking for him. Because everyone is out looking for the missing
Percy, they don't realize Erec is gone as well...until they find him.

In their own grief and remorse, no one sees or even thinks that Percy
might blame himself for Erec's accident. He takes that guilt and
buries it, reinventing himself as an obedient child and developing
what amounts to a complex about following rules. If breaking a rule
directly resulted in something Really Bad, then obeying the rules
should mean everything will be okay, right?

What A'jes' Blue picked up on is that Percy hides behind rules in
canon as well. He retreats to the safety of being told (by the rules)
what is permitted, and thus what is right. And so far, that attitude
has been rewarded. I think that's what the "Percy is Evil" folks pick
up on: the perception that one need not make any decisions but allow
an unspecified authority to dictate all policy. But I think a change
is in store for Percy.

The last thing we hear about Percy in GoF is that he's being
questioned by the Ministry in connection with Crouch's disappearance.
Percy, in his youthful desire to please, and his naivete, tried to
prove he was up to the tasks set before him, and got caught in a
bureaucratic nightmare because he thought he was following Crouch's
orders. I think he's about to see the kind of obfuscation and red tape
and incompetence the Ministry is capable of, and I think that will
disillusion him.

I also think Ron is wrong about Percy--he does put family first. When
he discovers Ron and Harry coming out of Myrtle's bathroom in CoS, he
tells Ron he believes that they had nothing to do with attacking Mrs.
Norris. He takes points away ten seconds later, but he *does* indicate
that he sides with Ron's story rather than the circumstantial evidence.

I think Percy will play an important role in the coming books, but it
may be more behind the scenes than in the foreground. Through reports
from Molly and articles in the Daily Prophet, we may learn that Percy
is working alongside his father to help from within the Ministry, or
else, he may become the scapegoat for Crouch and lose his job, freeing
him to work in the field. I think he's not an "in the field" type, so
if it were my decision, I'd keep him at the Ministry but use him as a
coordinator. Or perhaps JK will surprise us again, and reveal that
Percy's quite adept at duelling. I somehow doubt it.

But in any case, I think she's positioned him to grow up a lot as a
result of being kicked in the teeth by the world.

Gwen





From trog at wincom.net  Tue Apr  2 15:38:36 2002
From: trog at wincom.net (talondg)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:38:36 -0000
Subject: Percy "Evil"
In-Reply-To: <a89pvo+fhbo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8cj9s+fm97@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37310

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" <meboriqua at a...> wrote:

> In GoF, Ron remarks, 'Percy loves rules,' and he wonders whether his 
> brother would send a family member to Azkaban if it would advance 
> his career (GoF, pg 463).  Reflect on the role of bureaucracy in the 
> novels.  Does his tendency to side with bureaucracy make Percy 
> susceptible to the same sorts of errors made by Cornelius Fudge and 
> Barty Crouch, Sr., errors that ultimately (if unintentionally) help 
> Lord Voldemort?  Might we expect him - albeit unwillingly - to aid 
> Voldemort by following the letter of the law instead of its spirit?  
> Will he side with Crouch or with his family?

Well, he already has, hasn't he? By running the show in Crouch Sr's
absence without questioning the nature of Crouch's illness, he
contributed to the Crouch-Jr-as-Moody ruse.

I've known a few Percys in my time.

What probably isn't immediately apparent unless you've lived through
it, is that private schools form this tight little microcosim that is
unrelated to the world outside. The rules that govern your daily life
are very tightly defined, and they are (for the most part) totally
artificial.

There are two side-effects.

The first is that it is very easy to focus on the trees and lose sight
of the forest. The rules in a private school are designed to teach you
something that will be applicable in the outside world once you
graduate. It is easy, however, to get caught up in the rules and
forget why they're there in the first place.

School rules define a game. If you stick to the rules and follow them
to the utmost, you can maximise your "points" and advance within the
structure of the game. Percy does this - he's a prefect, and then Head
Boy (he wins!)

The problem is, of course, is that the rules of the game usually do
not transfer over very well to real life. Behaviour that worked well
within the walls of the school is often sub-optimal or inappropriate
in the world outside the walls. Not only do the rules themselves not
apply, but rules in general are not as strictly enforced in reality.

The second side-effect is that as you progress through the ranks
within the school, you get used to a certain amount of respect and
authority due to your position. Of course, once you graduate, this all
vapourizes, and the sudden shock of being a numpty once again can be a
little hard to handle.

Typically, someone in Percy's position will slam into a real-world
problem that their past procedures are ill-equipped to handle. They
either then learn, adapt, and overcome, or get shunted aside.

I rather expect that Percy has had his bucket of ice water dumped on
his head, and will probably adapt. I expect his behaviour and attitude
to change.

It has been my experience though, that men cut from the Fred & George
mold tend to make better leaders than those cut from the Percy mold.
Those of my peers who played the game flawlessly and wound up in
positions of power within the school went on to competant, but
indistinguished, careers as middle-managers. Those that played a
little more fast and loose with the rules, used their initiative more
often, and occasionally ran afoul of the rules, seem more inclined
(once they made contact with the Real World) to go forth to greatness.

DG




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Tue Apr  2 16:48:54 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:48:54 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names/Ginny
References: <1017309906.3119.95364.m12@yahoogroups.com> <003d01c1d6a6$58495280$18fb9b3e@i7p8l9> <p05010401b8cebbd78ef0@[66.32.51.188]> <004401c1da1c$d1824700$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <3CA9E0F6.893DCC4A@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37311

Alina wrote:
> 
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jennifer Boggess Ramon
>   Hmm . . . Arthur, William, Charles, Frederick, George . . . no wonder
>   poor Ron feels like he's got too much to live up to; his father and
>   all his brothers except Percy are named after kings!
> 
> That's it! Ginny isn't short for Virginia, it's short for Regina, which means Queen in latin! Even Percival can fit the system, being a knight of the round table, he's not too far off from a throne. Now, is there any royalty called Ronald?<<<

This doesn't quite fit the names for people, but King Arthur's broad
sword's/lance's was named Ron, with its full name being Rhongomyant.

"...he graces his right hand with the lance named Ron. This was a long
and broad spear, well contrived for slaughter."
 -Bulfinch's Mythology, page 400

How does Molly fit into this? Or does she not count because she is not
blood relation to Arthur?

-Katze



From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 17:00:45 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:00:45 -0000
Subject: Names/Ginny
In-Reply-To: <3CA9E0F6.893DCC4A@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <a8co3t+c1ib@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37312


> 
>
> 
> How does Molly fit into this? Or does she not count because she is 
not
> blood relation to Arthur?
> 
> -Katze


Molly is a nickname for Margaret and Mary. Most probably Molly's 
name is Margaret, if Molly is just a nickname of hers. But I don't 
know if there's any royalty who is named Margaret. There is a St. 
Margaret, though. :D




From maryblue67 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 17:02:11 2002
From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Werewolf of London? Paris? Where?
In-Reply-To: <1017497868.2925.32073.m3@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020402170211.57451.qmail@web11107.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37313




--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "southernscotland" 
<southernscotland at y...> wrote:
> This just struck me on the re-reading of the books:
> 
> Where was Remus during the time that Harry was with the Dursleys? 
Why 
> did he never attempt to contact him, or if he did, why did 
Dumbledore 
> not allow him to do so?

And Mercia answered:

<Good question. One possiblility might be that Dumbledore is well 
aware of how anti-wizarding world the Durlseys are. It seems vital 
that Harry is left in their care (that ancient protective magic 
thing) so presumably Dumbledore accepts that this will mean Harry 
will be unable to have any contact with wizarding folk except in 
very obscure or hidden ways such as Mrs Figg and being smiled at by 
Dedelus Diggle. I doubt Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia would have 
taken kindly to anyone turning up on their doorstep claiming to be a 
friend of that good for nothing James Potter and wanting to build a 
relationship with Harry. 
> 
> Also, in Book 3, why didn't he tell Harry right up front who he 
was? 
> Like, "I was in a very tight group of friends at Hogwarts, which 
> included your father. Unfortunately, I'm the only one still around 
> here. I'm so sorry he's dead, come here and I'll tell you all 
about 
> him and your mom." 
> 
> And should Harry be mad about this omission?

I think Remus is sort of building up to tell Harry stuff in PoA but 
it is part of his nature to do it slowly and gently. He is reticient 
and perhaps a bit embarrassed about showing feeling - a very English 
reserve there I feel compounded by the secret he has had to hide for 
most of his life. It would make it very hard for him to trust peopel 
and let others into the very centre of his life. Think of his 
reaction when Harry tells him about hearing Lilly and James when 
around the Dementor. I haven't got the text to hand but it says 
something like Lupin made as if to reach out to put an arm round 
Harry and then thought better of it. He would be concerned I think 
not to trade on Harry's feelings about his father and would rather 
build up a relationship with him in his own right before telling him 
how well he knew James. As people have pointed out before Harry 
seems slow to question the people who would have known his parents 
about them. He has a lot of information to handle from age 11 and it 
would take time to assimiliate it all. We are led to believe that 
book 5 will see Harry discovering more and more about his family. Of 
course it is also a very effective plot device allowing JKR to drip 
feed us the readers with as much or as little information as she 
wants at any particular point which I think is the main reason we 
don't get to meet Remus til book 3.>

I think it might have to do with the fact that Lupin is a werewolf.
Part of the story of the friendship between Lupin and James and the
others has to do with that, and perhaps he is trying to avoid any
chances of the topic being revealed, any questions that may arise.

And regarding why he didn't take care of Harry, or visit him while he
was not transformed: we know he is poor because he is not given many
chances, being a werewolf, so he is poor, has to wander around
looking for jobs, etc. He is not in the best of situations to go and
meet his friend's son. Besides, it would also involve in a way the
posibility of having to reveal he is a werewolf ("Where were you on
my 8th birthday, uncle Remus?", "Sorry, Harry, i was transforming and
was extremely dangerous"). 

Maria



=====
Maryblue
----------------------------------------------------------
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling
in love" - Eistein

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  2 17:12:49 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:12:49 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names/Ginny & Molly
Message-ID: <F151tgVy5RHilp631UN0001b685@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37314

There's been suggestion that Ginny is short for Guinivere as well, which 
tallies nicely with Arthurian legend...as for Molly, to bring in a 
completely different tale, the Unsinkable Molly Brown was known as the 
heroine of the Titanic...and in fact her name was Margaret and she was known 
as Maggie, but never Molly, in her life. And she was an Irish gal, much as I 
picture Molly Weasley to be.

J

>From: Katze <jdumas at kingwoodcable.com>
>Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
>To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Names/Ginny
>Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:48:54 -0600
>
>Alina wrote:
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Jennifer Boggess Ramon
> >   Hmm . . . Arthur, William, Charles, Frederick, George . . . no wonder
> >   poor Ron feels like he's got too much to live up to; his father and
> >   all his brothers except Percy are named after kings!
> >
> > That's it! Ginny isn't short for Virginia, it's short for Regina, which 
>means Queen in latin! Even Percival can fit the system, being a knight of 
>the round table, he's not too far off from a throne. Now, is there any 
>royalty called Ronald?<<<
>
>This doesn't quite fit the names for people, but King Arthur's broad
>sword's/lance's was named Ron, with its full name being Rhongomyant.
>
>"...he graces his right hand with the lance named Ron. This was a long
>and broad spear, well contrived for slaughter."
>  -Bulfinch's Mythology, page 400
>
>How does Molly fit into this? Or does she not count because she is not
>blood relation to Arthur?
>
>-Katze


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 17:18:48 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:18:48 -0000
Subject: Percy's Character Flaw
In-Reply-To: <a8ceqq+nin6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8cp5o+510p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37315

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gwendolyngrace" <lee_hillman at u...> wrote:
> Demeter answered Debbie:
> >
> > That plays off the theory that perhaps Percy was told 
> > endlessly that if he didn't behave, if he didn't follow the 
> > rules, if he didn't follow all the rules, then one of his little 
> > siblings would die.  

> In A'jes' Blue's fic, Arthur and Molly don't traumatize him about
> following the rules at all. He comes to the conclusions about rules
> himself, after the death of an older brother (Erec) born between
> Charlie and Percy.
> 
> Other than Charlie's winning the cup 7 years prior to PoA, and a
> comment Bill makes about coming back to Hogwarts for the first 
> time in 5 years, we don't know anything about their ages. A'jes' 
> Blue decided to pair all the children, so that they broke into 
> groups of two kids no more than a year or two apart. Bill and 
> Charlie. Erec and Percy.  Fred and George. Ron and Ginny. 
> (Interestingly, she did all this because she wanted Ron to be a 
> seventh son, so "Ron is a Seer" fans, take note.)

This also occurs in Cassie Claire's fics.  I don't know for certain, 
but a possible inspiration for this might have been Susan 
Cooper's "The Dark is Rising" sequence, in which the hero, the 
youngest of a large brood (and, he thought, the sixth son) turns out 
to be the seventh son (and he learns that his father is also a 
seventh son) because he was unaware of an older brother who died 
young.  I also inserted "missing" Weasley siblings into my fics, not 
to explain Percy's various neuroses and to make Ron a seer (as a 
joke, I made one of the sisters a "seer"), but partly to explain why 
Bill and Charlie are still not settled down, since they blamed 
themselve for their sisters' disappearance.  (There are other 
reasons I won't go into here.)

But since we're discussing Percy, it seems that one needn't diverge 
from canon and insert another child to pair them off.  Molly and 
Arthur had Bill and then Charlie, who seemed to have been pretty 
tight, and after finally having Percy (whatever the reason for the 
wait) they may also have decided to have a child close in age to him 
so that he, like Bill, would have a sibling who was a close 
companion.  (This is why my husband and I had our children 21 mos. 
apart.  Believe me, this is not easy.)  

However, Percy did not get a close companion out of this birth plan--
he got the twins, who were sufficient unto themselves, effectively 
isolating him.  Plus, by their mischievous nature, they further 
isolated him.  They reportedly don't include him in their pranks, 
they make him the butt of jokes.  When you think about it, the 
Percy/twins relationship is how the Harry/Ron/Hermione relationship 
could have gone if a) they hadn't all faced a troll together and b) 
if Harry and Ron were a bit more callous.  Hermione certainly wasn't 
inspiring their confidence very much at the start.  Hermione, unlike 
Percy, inspired their sympathy when she was clearly hurt by the way 
they treated her.  Chances are that Percy, if he overheard Fred and 
George say, "It's no wonder no one likes him," would not have run 
crying into the bathroom, although he would have been just as hurt 
(and if he HAD run off crying, they probably would have laughed 
about it).  

If the twins HAD included Percy in their fun, he might not have been 
so uptight.  I believe his adherence to the rules is a reaction to 
Fred and George excluding him from their world.  At home, and then 
later, when he's a prefect at school, he's in a position to tattle 
on them and give them comeuppance for their mischief-making, and, at 
the back of his mind, perhaps, for not being his friends as well as 
his brothers.  He now uses his adherence to rules and attempts at 
perfection to differentiate himself from his brothers, trying to 
tell himself that he's happier not getting detentions and not 
getting just a handful of O.W.L.s.  But even when he was Head Boy 
and had a girlfriend, Percy didn't seem all that happy a person.  He 
wasn't said to have a large circle (or even a small circle) of close 
friends.  He had Penelope; that was it.  JKR has created a very 
complex character who seems on the surface to be a simple brown-
nosing ambitious yes-man.  She has also shown, in the Weasley family 
dynamic, the possible reasons for his being this way: the twins.
 
> I think Percy will play an important role in the coming books, but 
> it may be more behind the scenes than in the foreground. Through 
> reports from Molly and articles in the Daily Prophet, we may learn 
> that Percy is working alongside his father to help from within the 
> Ministry, or else, he may become the scapegoat for Crouch and lose 
> his job, freeing him to work in the field. I think he's not an "in 
> the field" type, so if it were my decision, I'd keep him at the 
> Ministry but use him as a coordinator. Or perhaps JK will surprise 
> us again, and reveal that Percy's quite adept at duelling. I 
> somehow doubt it.

I think that Percy may turn out to be quite a red herring.  Many 
people would completely buy him as a turncoat who was attracted to 
Voldemort by his ambition.  However, if JKR did this, I think he 
would turn out to be a double agent, using his not-inconsiderable 
intellect to wreak havoc in the Death Eater ranks.  (Percy may be a 
competent duelist, but I think his braininess is more likely to be 
his greatest strength.)  He's already played clueless patsy and 
dupe, so I hope she doesn't prolong the agony for him and allows him 
to have a wake-up call.  Certainly if the events in GoF didn't 
change Percy for the better, I will be very disappointed.

--Barb

 




From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 17:26:42 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:26:42 -0000
Subject: Missing Weasley Children?
In-Reply-To: <AKELJIAAIHFIEHOGCIBLGEOECHAA.lmccabe@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <a8cpki+ja84@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37316

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Linda C. McCabe" <lmccabe at s...> wrote:

> I also liked
> Abigail's mention of Arthur's description of the Dark Mark and how 
it could
> have been an allusion to finding it at his own home marking the 
death of a
> child.
> 
> I think we are on to a Dark Backstory for the Weasley family.
> 
> Athena




I myself found Arthur's description of finding the Dark Mark over 
the house as very personal, that it is highly likely that he had 
experienced the horror himself. Ever since I read that part, I had a 
feeling that Arthur did indeed lose someone--probably a 
son/daughter, during Voldemort's years. I don't believe that the 
Weasleys are always a perpetually one big happy family.




From philnel at ksu.edu  Tue Apr  2 17:31:57 2002
From: philnel at ksu.edu (Philip Nel)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 11:31:57 -0600
Subject: Names / Percy's Character Flaw
References: <1017766938.7174.2312.m6@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CA9EB0D.A60F7CB1@ksu.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 37317

Dear all,

I should confess that the list's extremely high rate of activity means that I don't get to read every word of it.  So, apologies in advance if anything here is repetitive.

OTR adds:

> And a sister whose name, if not short for Virginia (for the
> Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I), could be short for Regina, which is Latin
> for queen (source: http://www.behindthename.com/nm/r2.html).
>
> Of course, if it turns out that Ginny is short for Ginger...

And, now, I add an *extremely* minor point: I think Ginger is short for Virginia, too.  (Virginia Katherine McMath was better known as Ginger Rogers.)

Demeter suggests:

>     Perhaps Percy equates power with money. If he had the money, he
> could help his family the way he wants to. This is all theoretical
> though. Feel free to dispute it. ^__^

Perhaps the Weasley children develop -- or are in the process of developing -- a response to their family's poverty.  Charlie and Bill get good and/or interesting jobs (Charlie's working with dragons, Bill's hunting treasure for the bank); Percy
aspires to be Minister for Magic; Fred and George want to open a joke shop.  I'm suggesting here that the type of job that each seeks is (a) a response to their family's meager financial resources, and (b) tells us something about each one's
character.  Of the five who have graduated from Hogwarts, Percy seems the most interested in status.  He's proud, he's ambitious, he wants prestige.  Fred and George appear to be aspiring businessmen: much more than Percy, these two are interested
in money (see their behavior in _GoF_, for abundant examples).  I don't feel that I know Charlie and Bill well enough, but if I were to speculate on their motivations, Charlie's adventurous and scientifically minded; Bill's job combines adventure
with status, but his status resides more in being "cool" (to cite Harry's first impression of him) than in having a prominent job at the Ministry.  Revisions, additions, subtractions, challenges, etc. to this idea are, of course, welcome.

Cheers,

Phil
--
Philip Nel
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Denison Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-0701
U.S.A.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.ksu.edu/english/nelp/
philnel at ksu.edu





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Apr  2 17:53:06 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:53:06 -0500
Subject: /Ginny
References: <1017309906.3119.95364.m12@yahoogroups.com> <003d01c1d6a6$58495280$18fb9b3e@i7p8l9> <p05010401b8cebbd78ef0@[66.32.51.188]> <004401c1da1c$d1824700$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <3CA9E0F6.893DCC4A@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <006601c1da6f$3e64c120$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37318

Ahem, adding my own research to this slew of name contemplations..According to a oxygen-hosted baby namer (you know that "television for women" channel?? Wait...or was that Lifetime?)...Ronald is derived from R?gnvaldr, which means Ruler's Counsel.  Kind of ties in with the fact that most (all?) of his family and Harry have names that are or can be formed from the names of kings and queens.

hmmm..

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 17:48:22 2002
From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Ron's Name
Message-ID: <20020402174822.58088.qmail@web21102.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37319

Hi. Just clearing this up...

m.bockermann at t... wrote:
> Besides, we know that Ron is short for Ronald... at
some time an 
angry Molly
> calls him that, IIRC. Can't remember where, exactly,
but it 
supports the
> idea that the Weasleys are not using each others
full name... 

finwitch at y... wrote:
>I don't recall Molly calling him that - but we're
>told, in the 
>Sorting!

Both wrong, canonwise. It was Dumbledore who called
him Ronald. And we weren't told that in the Sorting,
in the book at least (in the movie, yes). Anyway, the
real proof that it's Ronald is the sign on his room's
door saying RONALD. (You notice these things when it's
your own name involved...)

-Ron Yu

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From Jefrigo21 at aol.com  Tue Apr  2 17:49:47 2002
From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 12:49:47 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names/Ginny
Message-ID: <30B4A07D.3B92805A.025079A1@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37320

my question is then are the men in the house named for the Authorian peroid? Then the name Molly which seems to fit either Mary or Margert.  I want to point out that both names have royal people Queen(princess) Margret /and/or/ Mary.  If you think of it in that way the family of names make some sort of sense.  

I hope it makes some sort of sense.....

Joanna



In a message dated Tue, 2 Apr 2002 11:43:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, jdumas at kingwoodcable.com writes:

> 
> 
> Alina wrote:
> > 
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Jennifer Boggess Ramon
> >   Hmm . . . Arthur, William, Charles, Frederick, George . . . no wonder
> >   poor Ron feels like he's got too much to live up to; his father and
> >   all his brothers except Percy are named after kings!
> > 
> > That's it! Ginny isn't short for Virginia, it's short for Regina, which means Queen in latin! Even Percival can fit the system, being a knight of the round table, he's not too far off from a throne. Now, is there any royalty called Ronald?<<<
> 
> This doesn't quite fit the names for people, but King Arthur's broad
> sword's/lance's was named Ron, with its full name being Rhongomyant.
> 
> "...he graces his right hand with the lance named Ron. This was a long
> and broad spear, well contrived for slaughter."
> -Bulfinch's Mythology, page 400
> 
> How does Molly fit into this? Or does she not count because she is not
> blood relation to Arthur?
> 
> -Katze
> 
> 
> ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________
> 
> Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
> http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin
> 
> Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!
> 
> Is your message...
> An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
> Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
> Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
> None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
> Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com
> 
> Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> ____________________________________________________________ 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 





From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 17:35:32 2002
From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:35:32 -0000
Subject: More about "Names"
Message-ID: <a8cq54+fflm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37321

I find the connection to the "kings" very interesting.  Molly is a 
varriation of Mary so that fits very well.  If we can just solve 
the "Ron" part of the puzzle, I think we just might have it.  

Gretchen





From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 17:58:05 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:58:05 -0000
Subject: "Missing" Weasley Children
In-Reply-To: <007901c1da4b$3aacf3a0$2621b0d8@kerelsen>
Message-ID: <a8crfd+d97b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37322

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Bernadette M. Crumb" <kerelsen at q...> 
wrote:
> I know that we're having a lot of fun speculating horrible
> reasons for that nine year gap between the oldest two Weasley
> children and Percy, but has anyone thought that maybe one reason
> for that is that Arthur might not have been home to conceive a
> child during that time?
> 
> 

Please enlighten me. Where is it mentioned that the gap between the 
two eldest Weasley children and Percy is nine years? If not 
explicitly mentioned in canon, how did people come to a conclusion? 
I think I missed that part. Thank you. :D




From alina at distantplace.net  Tue Apr  2 17:51:48 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:51:48 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Names/Molly
References: <a8co3t+c1ib@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004f01c1da6f$10a8af80$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37323

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: gideoner4 

  Molly is a nickname for Margaret and Mary. Most probably Molly's 
  name is Margaret, if Molly is just a nickname of hers. 


I vote for Mary rather than Margaret. And then we can compare her to Virgin Mary. Although, that would be a more suitable name for Lily, no? I also think that Molly could be her full name and J.K. Rowling chose it to associate with the word "mother". Mrs. Weasely does seem like the ultimate mother of the series, doesn't she, taking in all of her children's friends despite having so many children of her own. 

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From medusa_975 at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  2 18:03:34 2002
From: medusa_975 at hotmail.com (medusa_975)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:03:34 -0000
Subject: Names/Ginny & Molly
In-Reply-To: <F151tgVy5RHilp631UN0001b685@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a8crpm+6cns@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37324

The Oxford Dictionary of English Folklore gives the name "Ginny" as 
an alternative spelling of "Jenny". It's in an entry for a water 
sporit called Jenny (or Ginny) Greenteeth, who however seems to have 
no connection with Ginny Weasley.


--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" <that1guy_hp at h...> wrote:
> There's been suggestion that Ginny is short for Guinivere as well, 
which 
> tallies nicely with Arthurian legend...as for Molly, to bring in a 
> completely different tale, the Unsinkable Molly Brown was known as 
the 
> heroine of the Titanic...and in fact her name was Margaret and she 
was known 
> as Maggie, but never Molly, in her life. And she was an Irish gal, 
much as I 
> picture Molly Weasley to be.
> 
> J
> 
> >From: Katze <jdumas at k...>
> >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at y...
> >To: HPforGrownups at y...
> >Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Names/Ginny
> >Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:48:54 -0600
> >
> >Alina wrote:
> > >
> > >   ----- Original Message -----
> > >   From: Jennifer Boggess Ramon
> > >   Hmm . . . Arthur, William, Charles, Frederick, George . . . 
no wonder
> > >   poor Ron feels like he's got too much to live up to; his 
father and
> > >   all his brothers except Percy are named after kings!
> > >
> > > That's it! Ginny isn't short for Virginia, it's short for 
Regina, which 
> >means Queen in latin! Even Percival can fit the system, being a 
knight of 
> >the round table, he's not too far off from a throne. Now, is there 
any 
> >royalty called Ronald?<<<
> >
> >This doesn't quite fit the names for people, but King Arthur's 
broad
> >sword's/lance's was named Ron, with its full name being 
Rhongomyant.
> >
> >"...he graces his right hand with the lance named Ron. This was a 
long
> >and broad spear, well contrived for slaughter."
> >  -Bulfinch's Mythology, page 400
> >
> >How does Molly fit into this? Or does she not count because she is 
not
> >blood relation to Arthur?
> >
> >-Katze
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: 
http://mobile.msn.com




From john at walton.vu  Tue Apr  2 18:04:01 2002
From: john at walton.vu (John Walton)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 13:04:01 -0500
Subject: Percy gets a bum rap
In-Reply-To: <a8cp5o+510p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <B8CF5CC1.3F1E%john@walton.vu>

No: HPFGUIDX 37325

And no, that's not the title of the latest chapter of Keeper's Secrets.

I think that many people, me included, have in the past subscribed to the
"Percy Is An Evil Death Eater" theory -- it's certainly easy to jump on this
bandwagon, and IMO the author wants the reader to do exactly that.

Percy is seen as a "Humungous Bighead" from the start, and while it's
certainly a possibility that this is a result of the Harrycentric narration,
I can see the argument for both a true foreshadowing and a red herring. He's
either the perfect stereotype or too stereotypical, depending on your point
of view.

Of course, many fanfiction writers attempt to take Percy out of this
stereotype and explain why he is so rule-neurotic. I think that many of the
reasonings for Evil!Ron can also be applied to Evil!Percy -- namely that
they both have to make their own way between a whole raft of siblings, and
this is certainly going to impact on their personalities, possibly in a
negative way.

Bill & Charlie are "cool", Fred & George are "funny", Ginny is "cute", Percy
is "obedient", and Ron is "evil"...oh, wait. I meant "loyal". Yeah. *grins
and ducks the tomatoes from the Ron-lovers*

One way that some fanfic writers, me included (in "Keeper's Secrets" on
AstronomyTower.org), have explained Percy's reliance on rules is to make him
gay, and have the societal stigma of the Wizarding World* create a reaction
within him to follow all *other* rules and norms to a T.

* This stigma is, of course, author-created, as we have not yet seen a gay
character in the HPverse.

At any rate, I do think that Percy gets a bum rap. Just because his brothers
are cool/funny/loyal does not mean that, in person, he cannot be cool, funny
and loyal. Imagine how difficult it would be if *you* were Head Boy and your
brothers were renowned as the chief rule-breakers in school. A friend of
mine was in a similar situation at school and it was extremely difficult.

Ah well. Just my ?0.031 (US$0.02).

--John
________________________________

John Walton -- john at walton.vu

No, the people who believe that whoever dies with the most money wins
can't afford to have us read and love Tolkien's LOTR.  It's subversive
literature, and the only way they can be safe is to convince us all that
it's only fit for children.
     --Emma Bull, "Why I Read Fantasy"
________________________________




From cassandraclaire73 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 18:12:50 2002
From: cassandraclaire73 at yahoo.com (cassandraclaire73)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:12:50 -0000
Subject: Ron as seventh son
In-Reply-To: <a8cp5o+510p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8csb2+dppk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37326

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:

Gwen:> > A'jes' 
> > Blue decided to pair all the children, so that they broke into 
> > groups of two kids no more than a year or two apart. Bill and 
> > Charlie. Erec and Percy.  Fred and George. Ron and Ginny. 
> > (Interestingly, she did all this because she wanted Ron to be a 
> > seventh son, so "Ron is a Seer" fans, take note.)"
> 
Barb: This also occurs in Cassie Claire's fics.  I don't know for 
certain,  but a possible inspiration for this might have been Susan 
> Cooper's "The Dark is Rising" sequence, in which the hero, the 
> youngest of a large brood (and, he thought, the sixth son) turns 
out  to be the seventh son (and he learns that his father is also a 
> seventh son) because he was unaware of an older brother who died 
> young."

:D At Barb. Actually, that didn't come from The Dark Is Rising, 
although I can see how it would look like that. It came out of a 
discussion right here on HP4GU over a year and a half ago. (Cannot be 
bothered to do archive search, but it ought to be findable in there 
under "Ron" and "seventh son.")

In TDIR, Will isn't aware he's a seventh son, and in my fics, Ron 
knows he had a brother who died, since his brother drowned when he 
was six. It was merely my attempt to 1) make Ron a seer and 2) 
Explain why he knew anti-drowning charms. :D I love TDIR though and 
did a nod to it when I gave Harry an amulet to wear on his belt, as 
Will Stanton wears the six Signs. The Seventh Son mythology is well 
established although I don't know where it originates -- I know 
Achilles was the seventh son of Thetis, I know Orson Scott Card drew 
on the seventh son myths in his Alvin Maker series, but I'm unsure 
where it began.

"Ron is a seventh son" is a wildly popular plot device in fics, as it 
makes him a Seer and gives him something useful to do, as well as 
explaining the gap between Percy and Charlie. There is a Dark Is 
Rising - based Seventh Son fic called In the Bleak Midwinter where 
Ron, like Will, discovers that he is a seventh son by examining his 
family's old Christmas ornaments. It's by Morgead and is at 
Sugarquill.


Cassie




From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Apr  2 18:17:08 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Missing" Weasley Children
In-Reply-To: <a8crfd+d97b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020402181708.61949.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37327


--- gideoner4 <gideoner4 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Please enlighten me. Where is it mentioned that the
> gap between the 
> two eldest Weasley children and Percy is nine years?
> If not 
> explicitly mentioned in canon, how did people come
> to a conclusion? 
> I think I missed that part. Thank you. :D

You can look at the Timeline at the Harry Potter
Lexicon for date information, or look in the books. I
know the presumption is 9 years - but it could be 8 or
10 just as easily...

The presumption is arrived at this way:
Canon fact: CoS takes place in 1992/1993, if you add
500 (the number of years Sir Nick is celebrating at
his Deathday) to 1492, the year listed on his cake as
when he died.  
Canon fact: PS/SS takes place in 1991/1992 (one year
before CoS).
Canon fact: It was more than 7 years between when
Charlie played Seeker and when Gryffindor won the cup
as a third year (1994, as the cup was won in the
spring). 
Canon fact: Percy is a 5th year in 1991, which means
that he started Hogwarts in 1987.
IF Charlie played Seeker in his 7th year, Charlie
would have been a 7th year in school year 1985-1986,
and would've finished Hogwarts more than a year before
Percy started. 

Given the vagueries of birthdays, presuming everyone
started "on time", they would be somewhere between 
eight and ten years apart. Nine is the reasonable
number. 


heidi
http://www.fictionalley.org
fanfic in all shapes, sizes and SHIPs

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From absinthe at mad.scientist.com  Tue Apr  2 18:33:52 2002
From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (milztoday)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:33:52 -0000
Subject: Mitfords and Weasleys (was Re: Official Discussion Questions )
In-Reply-To: <001601c1d92f$5acf2620$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a8ctig+omm4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37328

> 
> Dr. Philip Nel writes:
 
> ***********************************
> 
 
> In GoF, Ron remarks, 'Percy loves rules,' and he wonders whether 
his brother would send a family member to Azkaban if it would advance 
his career (GoF, pg 463).  Reflect on the role of bureaucracy in the 
novels.  Does his tendency to side with bureaucracy make Percy 
susceptible to the same sorts of errors made by Cornelius Fudge and 
Barty Crouch, Sr., errors that ultimately (if unintentionally) help 
Lord Voldemort?  Might we expect him - albeit unwillingly - to aid 
Voldemort by following the letter of the law instead of its spirit?  
Will he side with Crouch or with his family?
> 

Hi everyone, it's been a while since I've written. I recently 
discovered the books of Nancy Mitford and began doing some background 
reading on her. In the process, I discovered that Rowling named her 
daughter after, Jessica Mitford, Nancy's sister, who was also an 
author and that Rowling gave her daughter J. Mitford's autobiography 
_Hons and Rebels_ as a christening present. Rowling has made it no 
secret that she bases her Potter characters upon people she has known 
or upon figures from folk-lore and mythology. After reading a bit 
about the Mitford family, I have the impression that she partially 
based the Weasleys upon them. I'll begin with some background and 
review, before tackling Percy issues.

Mitford background: They were an aristocratic family. Nancy's father 
was a Baron. The father was mildly eccentric, fond of hunting and 
other bucolic activities, preferring to live in the countryside. Of 
the children, there were seven Mitfords: six girls and a boy. They 
were Nancy, Diana, Unity, Pamela, Jessica, Deborah and Tom. Nancy, 
born in 1907, was the eldest. Deborah, born in 1920, the youngest.Tom 
died in combat during WW II. Pamela had a fondness for horses as a 
child and became a horse-breeder later in life. Deborah is the 
current Duchess of Devonshire. Diana married Sir Oswald Mosley the 
leader of the Fascist Party in Britain and was jailed for her 
activities. Unity, however, followed Hitler and became a close friend 
of his. When the war began, a distraught Unity shot herself in the 
head. She survived, only to die some years later. Jessica became a 
Communist and lived in the US. She wrote a book exposing the dirty 
side of the American Funeral industry. Nancy, as mentioned before, 
was an author best known, perhaps, for her comedic novels. Nancy, by 
the way, was one of the people who urged Churchill to imprison Diana 
(which strangely echoes Ron's musing about Percy). Tom died in combat 
during WW II. I can't find much about him, but everything I have read 
indicates that he was a nice fellow and generally well-liked.

Weasley background: One of the oldest pureblood wizarding families. 
Father is mildly eccentric with a fondness for Muggles. The Weasleys 
live in relative isolation compared to the Magicals who live in more 
populated areas, like Hogsmead. There are seven Weasley children: six 
boys and a girl. Estimates have Bill anywhere from 13 to 20 years 
older than Ginny. Charlie Weasley could have played Quiddich 
professionally but chose to study Dragons instead (paraphrasing 
Oliver Wood in SS/PS). Bill has a respectable job working at 
Gringotts. Percy has an interest in politics. He hero-worships MoM 
leaders such as Cornelius Fudge and Barty Crouch Sr. Fred and George 
are the pranksters. Ginny, well, not much is written about her, but 
what is indicates that she's a nice person and she was almost killed 
by Tom Riddle in CoS. Ron is Harry's best friend, with a streak of 
jealousy and somewhat low self-esteem (but is that an unheard of 
combination in real people?).

The most interesting Mitford-Weasley parallel, is the Percy-Unity-
Diana-Jessica one, imo. The fates of these Mitfords night give us a 
hint at what's in store for Percy post-GoF with the 
disappearance/murder of Barty Crouch Sr. and Cornelius Fudges' 
refusal to believe Voldemort is risen. Maybe Percy will spend some 
time in Azkaban a la Diana Mitford. Maybe like Diana, Percy will be 
the betrayed, not the betrayor as speculated by folks in the Group 
(myself included). Maybe he'll leave the MoM and, as Jessica did, 
begin to write about social injustices. Or maybe, and more 
tragically, he'll follow in the footsteps of Unity Mitford. 

Anyhow, I just wanted to share this Mitford-Weasley link with all of 
you as I haven't seen it brought up in the Group before. It might be 
farfetched, but the Rowling-Jessica Mitford connection makes me 
believe otherwise.

Finally, I want to stress this last point. I'm not saying that 
Rowling based the Weasleys ENTIRELY upon the Mitfords. (The Mitford 
parents didn't believe in education for women, particularly their 
daughters and they separated partially due to the political 
differences. Jessica ran off at age 17 to marry. Nancy had an unhappy 
marriage. Etc.) But I am saying that there are some rather striking 
parallels between the two, imho.

Milz





From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Apr  2 18:43:03 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:43:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as seventh son
In-Reply-To: <a8csb2+dppk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020402184303.79058.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37329


--- cassandraclaire73 <cassandraclaire73 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> :D At Barb. Actually, that didn't come from The Dark
> Is Rising, 
> although I can see how it would look like that. It
> came out of a 
> discussion right here on HP4GU over a year and a
> half ago. (Cannot be 
> bothered to do archive search, but it ought to be
> findable in there 
> under "Ron" and "seventh son.")

Here's an interesting way to search it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messagesearch/21717?query=ron%20seventh%20son%20seer

We haven't had a good Ron Is A Seer discussion here
since last *June*. This is as good a time as any to
trot out that canon evidence (some of which you can
find by following the links in Amanda's post at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/21324
or reviewing the post at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/33530
which I quote below)
1. Ron's predictions from Divination class are
accurate
Ron sees two things in Harry's teacup:

An acorn, representing a windfall, unexpected gold -
the 1000 Galleons from the Tri-wizard cup in GoF,
perhaps?

An animal (not the Grim!) - Sirius Black is an
animagus (as we discover later in the book)

In GoF, Ron makes the following predictions for his
star chart:

Harry will be stabbed in the back by someone he
thought was a friend - Harry and Ron have a fight
after Harry is named to the Tri-wizard tournament and
barely speak for almost a month.

Ron predicts his own drowning - he is taken underwater
by the merpeople for Harry to rescue in the second
task.


2. Ron comments that maybe T.M. Riddle murdered Myrtle
(well, he *did*)
3.  Ron, also in CoS, tries to stop Harry frompicking
up the Diary because it might be dangerous
4. Again in CoS, Ron says that Lockhart's adventures
might only be things he "says he's done", but not
actually done.


Of course, torimarie posts in Message 33656 that Ron
"does possibly make a prediction about Percy that I
fear will come true later..." which brings us back to
the Nel question of the week - Percy - good, evil,
ambitious, patsy or misled? But I need to read some of
the posts on that before I reply. 

heidi
http://www.fictionalley.org




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From kerelsen at quik.com  Tue Apr  2 18:51:10 2002
From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:51:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Missing" Weasley Children
References: <a8crfd+d97b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009501c1da77$5c71a680$e021b0d8@kerelsen>

No: HPFGUIDX 37330


----- Original Message -----
From: "gideoner4" <gideoner4 at yahoo.com>

> Please enlighten me. Where is it mentioned that the gap between
the
> two eldest Weasley children and Percy is nine years? If not
> explicitly mentioned in canon, how did people come to a
conclusion?
> I think I missed that part. Thank you. :D

It's not specifically mentioned in the books, but in a previous
posting by someone else on this list (sorry I can't find the darn
post now), the gap came from the assumed ages of the older boys,
and how old Percy was when Harry and Ron came to Hogwarts.  The
implication is that Charlie had already graduated from Hogwarts
by the time Percy first got there.  That means at least a seven
year gap between them.  And someone else used the number nine in
relation to these years, and I guess that's why I used it my
post.  My bad for not checking more closely...

Bernadette

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Tue Apr  2 18:50:30 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 12:50:30 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Names/Ginny
References: <a8co3t+c1ib@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CA9FD76.72C97331@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37331

gideoner4 wrote:

> Molly is a nickname for Margaret and Mary. Most probably Molly's
> name is Margaret, if Molly is just a nickname of hers. But I don't
> know if there's any royalty who is named Margaret. There is a St.
> Margaret, though. :D

This is very interesting...where I grew up (New Mexico, USA), a nickname
for Margaret is Maggie or Marge. Mary doesn't have a nickname unless you
go with Mar (like mare). I had a friend who was named Molly, and that
was her full name. Learn something new everyday!

-Katze



From ohtoresonate at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 21:04:24 2002
From: ohtoresonate at yahoo.com (ohtoresonate)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 21:04:24 -0000
Subject: Names - Ginny
In-Reply-To: <3CA9EB0D.A60F7CB1@ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <a8d6co+u99v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37332

--- part of a post from Philip Nel <philnel at k...>:
> OTR adds:
> 
> > And a sister whose name, if not short for Virginia (for the
> > Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I), could be short for Regina, which is 
> > Latin for queen (source: http://www.behindthename.com/nm/r2.html).
> >
> > Of course, if it turns out that Ginny is short for Ginger...
> 
> And, now, I add an *extremely* minor point: I think Ginger is short 
for Virginia, too.  (Virginia Katherine McMath was better known as 
Ginger Rogers.)

Good point.  I only had the not-very-royal condiment (and not Geri 
Halliwell) and the color red (as in ginger cats) in mind when I threw 
that out for a chuckle.

:) OTR   
  
             

   




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Tue Apr  2 21:15:49 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 21:15:49 -0000
Subject: That's an interesting theory --> Re: Percy's Character Flaw
In-Reply-To: <a8boqb+f9p3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8d725+4f3p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37333

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "demeter918" <Demeter918 at A...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Debbie Westmerland" <westmerd at h...> 
wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be really weird if Percy was the cause of a 
sibling's 
> death. That would IMHO be a reason why he always plays by the 
rules, 
> maybe when he was young, he broke the rules and his brother died 
> because of it.
> > 
> > Debbie
> 
> 
>    That plays off the theory that perhaps Percy was told endlessly 
> that if he didn't behave, if he didn't follow the rules, if he 
didn't 
> follow all the rules, then one of his little siblings would die. 
And 
> so would 'mummy' and himself. Pretty scary stuff for a five-year 
old. 


Is there any canon at all to suggest that Percy alone among the 
Weasley children was browbeaten into behaving and following rules?  
I know that lots of wild theories have been proposed lately but 
usually the poster at least attempts to tie them to some sort of 
canon.  I've always believed that Percy has his *own* personality, 
and that even though he was brought up under more or less the same 
conditions as his siblings, he's just perfectionistic and fussy 
about rules because he's, well...Percy.  I realize that isn't really 
terribly exciting, but I can't see JKR coming up with some deeply 
traumatic reason for each family member having their own individual 
identity.


Demeter again: 
>    And with that huge age-gap between him and Charlie, there's a 
> definite possibility for a kid in there. And it would make sense. 
Why 
> else would the have Bill, then Charlie, and then suddenly no kids 
for 
> nine years before Percy?
> 
>    There's a fic written by A'jes' Blue that deals with that 
> possibility. 

 
Again, is there any canon to support this notion that there was a 
kid born between Charlie and Percy?  There is a 10 year gap between 
me and my older sister and there is also a similar 10 year gap in my 
husband's family.  There were no deaths or miscarriages; it was just 
a matter of deciding to have one more child before it was too late.  
I'm not saying that the Weasley's may not have had a reason to stop 
having children for a period during Voldemort's reign of terror, but 
so far I've seen no evidence to support the loss of a child in this 
period.  I fear that the list is turning into a fanfic generating 
machine.


Jo Serenadust, fighting an uphill battle to stay canonically (is 
that a word?) *pure*




From inviziblegirl at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  2 21:25:35 2002
From: inviziblegirl at hotmail.com (Amber ?)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 16:25:35 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy gets a bum rap
Message-ID: <F638BYXifWoqFXfyY0Q00006d6c@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37334


John wrote:
>At any rate, I do think that Percy gets a bum rap. Just because his 
>brothers are cool/funny/loyal does not mean that, in person, he cannot be 
>cool, funny and loyal. Imagine how difficult it would be if *you* were Head 
>Boy and your brothers were renowned as the chief rule-
>breakers in school. A friend of mine was in a similar situation at school 
>and it was extremely difficult.

Bravo to that. It takes *guts* to be in any sort of leadership position 
where you have to "police" your peers. Add in that a few of your peers are 
your siblings and you have a very touchy situation. Make the siblings like 
Fred and George...well, I can certainly understand some of Percy's 
uptightness.

Percy, in my mind, is walking a tightrope. He's got some ideas in his head 
about How The World Works that just aren't that viable. He needs to learn to 
look outside the rules and see the situation as it is. However, as Demeter 
wrote (I think it was Demeter!), Percy's early formative years were during 
Voldemort's first rise. I imagine rules did rule his life then. "Don't 
answer the door, don't go outside, keep your brothers from leaving, watch 
the babies, don't ask what is happening, DO WHAT I SAY NOW OR WE MIGHT ALL 
DIE". Of course this is speculation but I could easily see this scenario. 
Percy's gotta learn to put aside the impulse to blindly do what is said 
(which probably kept him safe when he was young) and look at the larger 
picture.

I love the guy. He's remarkably ambitious and a hard worker. He has 
accomplished quite a lot in his life and clearly has the skills to be 
successful. He's just gotta get his head out of his arse and look at the sky 
once in awhile. *grin* Okay, okay, maybe I'm joking a little...

Percy has shown no indication that he is "evil" (which I think is a 
problematic word in itself but won't contest that now). He has flaws, as do 
ALL of the HP characters (Harry is damned impulsive, Hermione sometimes 
freezes in crucial moments, and Ron is ruled too much by his emotions and 
temper). But I've seen nothing in the canon that makes me think "Death Eater 
wannabe" about Percy. I can see him making a crucial mistake or being 
tricked but knowingly betray his family or friends? Nah, it isn't there.

I've lots more thoughts on Percy but will refrain. 'Sides, I've got the 
feeling it's all been said before. But I'm always pleased to see Percy's 
name in the subject line...

~Amber

********
http://www.the-tabula-rasa.com

I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
- excerpt from "Preludes" by T.S. Eliot

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 21:37:20 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 21:37:20 -0000
Subject: Ron as seventh son
In-Reply-To: <20020402184303.79058.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a8d8ag+c8rc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37335

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidi tandy <heidit at n...> wrote:
> 
> In GoF, Ron makes the following predictions for his
> star chart:
> 
> Harry will be stabbed in the back by someone he
> thought was a friend - Harry and Ron have a fight
> after Harry is named to the Tri-wizard tournament and
> barely speak for almost a month.

I'm not sure that bedcause people are on the outs and not speaking to 
each other means that Harry was stabbed in the back. Stabbing someone 
in the back usually indicates that person is doing or saying awful 
things about the other person, usually while pretending to be a 
friend.

> Ron predicts his own drowning - he is taken underwater
> by the merpeople for Harry to rescue in the second
> task.

A clear prediction.
> 
> 
> 2. Ron comments that maybe T.M. Riddle murdered Myrtle
> (well, he *did*)
> 3.  Ron, also in CoS, tries to stop Harry frompicking
> up the Diary because it might be dangerous

Remember how Arthur told Ginny at the end of CoS: "Haven't I taught 
you anything? Never trust anything that can think for itself if you 
can't see where it keeps its brain." (CoS, British Adult PB version, 
p. 242). I'm sure Ron learned that from his father and is why he 
doesn't want Harry to pick it up.


> 4. Again in CoS, Ron says that Lockhart's adventures
> might only be things he "says he's done", but not
> actually done.

Well, I think that one's obvious to anyone with half a brain at all. 
I seriously doubt any divination skills need for that one.

Zoe Hooch, devil's advocate in training




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 21:48:22 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 21:48:22 -0000
Subject: Cho Chang (Was Re: Hair and Beauty in the Wizarding World)
In-Reply-To: <a8b4oa+ireu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8d8v6+96tt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37336

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ritadear2" <ritadarling at i...> wrote:
> Harry is attracted to Cho, not only because she's smart and a good 
> quiddich player, but also because she's *pretty*, 

I reread Cho's passages in GoF and Harry's attraction is more 
than 'she's pretty'. In Ch. 19 (p 315 in my edition) Rita Skeeter's 
1st article on Harry has just come out. Ron and Harry are fighting 
and Hermione's the only friend Harry seems to have. At this time, 
Harry blows up at an innocent comment...
____
"Hey --- Harry!"

"Yeah that's right!" Harry found himself shouting as he wheeled 
around in the corridor, having had just about enough. "I've just been 
crying my eyes out over my dead mum and I'm just off to do a bit 
more..."

"No--- it was just--- you dropped your quill."

It was Cho. Harry felt the color rising in his face.

"Oh--- right--- sorry," he muttered, taking the quill back.

"Er... good luck on Tuesday," she said, "I really hope you're doing 
well."
____

While all off Hogwart's seemed to be resenting and ridiculing Harry, 
Cho reached out with encouragement. Among the teenage girls I grew up 
with, that caring is rare.

Then when he did well on the 1st test and girls he never knew fawned 
over him, Cho treated him the same. If Harry had been a little 
quicker and asked first, I think Cho would have accepted his invite 
to the Yule Ball.

I don't want to ship, but let me say that there is more to Cho than 
posters have given her credit. I look forward to seeing her in books 
5,6,and 7.

Uncmark




From ohtoresonate at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  2 21:59:18 2002
From: ohtoresonate at yahoo.com (ohtoresonate)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 21:59:18 -0000
Subject: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <20020402184303.79058.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a8d9jm+hk7f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37337

--- snipped from post from heidi tandy <heidit at n...>:

> In GoF, Ron makes the following predictions for his
> star chart:
> 
> Harry will be stabbed in the back by someone he
> thought was a friend - Harry and Ron have a fight
> after Harry is named to the Tri-wizard tournament and
> barely speak for almost a month.

Hmm...I always thought Fake!Moody stabbed Harry and not Ron.  
Really, Ron's guilty of abandoning (not betraying) Harry.

As to Ron's overall ability to "see," let's not ignore the times when 
Ron has jumped to the WRONG conclusions.  True, some of his assertions 
in canon can still come true in canon, but look at all that he's been 
wrong about.  In particular, time and time again Ron attributes evil 
intentions to those he despise (Snape, Draco) and turns out to be 
wrong about them after all which led them to ignore the real culprits. 
 How many times has Ron pointed to Snape or Draco, accusing them of 
being the root of all trouble?  (Really, does Snape or Draco need help 
in that department? <grin> )  I am not yet convinced that Ron's 
batting average as a "Seer" is better than others at Hogwarts.

:) OTR     
 
 
 

           




From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  2 22:09:29 2002
From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:09:29 -0000
Subject: Names - Ginny
In-Reply-To: <a8d6co+u99v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8da6p+8l2o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37338

Ok, Ginny could be short for either: Virginia, Regina *or* Genevieve. 
I always thought the first and last names of those three were more 
likely. Of course, Ginny may even *be* her full name. I know 2 people 
called 'Vicky' that isn't short for Victoria. That's their full name.

But maybe not. Ginny's brothers all have names that have been 
shortened to something else. It's a pity we never got the see the 
sorting in CoS, then we would have known for sure :(

Rosie

http://magic-hogwarts.com




From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  2 22:17:04 2002
From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:17:04 -0000
Subject: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <a8d9jm+hk7f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8dal0+fn3q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37339

> Hmm...I always thought Fake!Moody stabbed Harry and not Ron.  
> Really, Ron's guilty of abandoning (not betraying) Harry.

Yes, I never thought of Moody. But I don't exactly think that Harry 
thought of him as a friend. He was always a little weary of him. 

> As to Ron's overall ability to "see," let's not ignore the times 
>when 
> Ron has jumped to the WRONG conclusions.  True, some of his 
>assertions 

Yes, but I think he has predicted it right, many more times than 
wrong. So he may have jumped to conclusions on Snape and Draco 
Malfoy, but then they are two very complex characters. Most readers 
proably jumped to the same conclusions surrounding their behaviour 
(eg. Snape trying to *kill* Harry). I know I did. Who would have 
thought Snape the sarcastic, snide and horrible to Harry, guy would 
actually try to save him? ;)

Rosie

http://magic-hogwarts.com







From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr  2 22:39:26 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:39:26 -0000
Subject: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <a8dal0+fn3q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8dbuu+qqsk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37340

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "flower_fairy12" <graceofmyheart at h...>
wrote:

> > As to Ron's overall ability to "see," let's not ignore the times 
> >when 
> > Ron has jumped to the WRONG conclusions.  True, some of his 
> >assertions 
> 
> Yes, but I think he has predicted it right, many more times than 
> wrong. So he may have jumped to conclusions on Snape and Draco 
> Malfoy, but then they are two very complex characters. Most readers 
> proably jumped to the same conclusions surrounding their behaviour 
> (eg. Snape trying to *kill* Harry). I know I did. Who would have 
> thought Snape the sarcastic, snide and horrible to Harry, guy would 
> actually try to save him? ;)

Well, a seer would have, presumably. :-)  That's what being a seer
means, after all -- being able to predict things that aren't
immediately obvious.

To me, Ron's supposed "predictions" don't look like predictions at
all.  He just throws out random thoughts and speculations, and some of
them hit the mark while others don't.  There's no indication of
anything mystical about the things he says; we've never seen him go
into a trance the way Trelawney did.  Might as well argue that
Hermione is a seer -- after all, she correctly "predicted" that Snape
wasn't a bad guy, and that Crookshanks didn't really kill Scabbers.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From chris at dickson.demon.co.uk  Tue Apr  2 22:43:26 2002
From: chris at dickson.demon.co.uk (lurkwarbler)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:43:26 -0000
Subject: Names
In-Reply-To: <p05010401b8cebbd78ef0@[66.32.51.188]>
Message-ID: <a8dc6e+nvqm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37341

Be warned, fair reader, that I can't think of a way of expressing
this without being a little, well, off-colour. Nonetheless, I'm being
serious.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon <boggles at e...> 
wrote:

> Hmm . . . Arthur, William, Charles, Frederick, George . . . no 
wonder 
> poor Ron feels like he's got too much to live up to; his father and 
> all his brothers except Percy are named after kings!

I propose a tongue-in-cheek theory that Percy is named after King
Richard - or, rather, any of the King Richards. Now much as William, 
Charles and Frederick are known by colloquial forms (Bill, Charlie 
and Fred), in the same way, Richard would be known as Dick. As it 
happens, this is a common nickname for the penis. A rather less
vulgar and more childish alternative is "Percy". Now I would have
estimated the chance of JKR using an obscure genital nomenclature gag
as extremely low, until we found out in GoF that she's well prepared
to put an explicit "Uranus" reference in the text just for laughs!

I am well over 99% sure that I'm seeing things where they shouldn't 
be seen and need to get my mind out of the gutter, but it's just 
possible that it might be correct and original... and, yes, Dr. 
Freud, I will step into your nice room for my next appointment :-)

Best wishes,
Chris
(who only wishes he had thought of this a day or two earlier, when it 
would have sounded so much more convincing at the time)

-- 
Chris M. Dickson, Middlesbrough, Great Britain.




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Tue Apr  2 23:07:25 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:07:25 -0800
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <a8dbuu+qqsk@eGroups.com>
References: <a8dbuu+qqsk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <176312568924.20020402150725@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37342



Hi,

Tuesday, April 02, 2002, 2:39:26 PM, marinafrants wrote:

> Well, a seer would have, presumably. :-)  That's what being a seer
> means, after all -- being able to predict things that aren't
> immediately obvious.

I thought it meant predicting things that haven't happened
yet, obvious or not.

But does it also mean a seer has to be able to predict
things all the time?

I can't remember any seers besides Trelawney playing a big
role in the HP universe (but I am not extremely observant
and have only read all the books twice, so far).

If there were any others mentioned, how frequently did they
*see* and was it always in the way Trelawney's 2 "true"
predictions happened?

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Tue Apr  2 23:20:28 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 18:20:28 EST
Subject: More about "Names"
Message-ID: <157.ba05a55.29db96bc@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37343

My baby name book says 'Ronald' is Old Norse for 'ruler of judgement' or 
'mighty power'.  Another source, (babynamer.com) gives the definition as from 
the name 'Rognvaldr' which means 'Ruler's counsel'. (This site also has a 
very interesting essay on Names fromt the Harry Potter Book Series!)  Also, 
upon delving into this over a year ago, I am sure I saw a meaning for 
'Ronald' as being 'king' but cannot remember where I read this information.
~shahara in snowy wi
(off to check my Norse books!)

<< I find the connection to the "kings" very interesting.  Molly is a 

varriation of Mary so that fits very well.  If we can just solve 

the "Ron" part of the puzzle, I think we just might have it.   >>




shahara lefay * pagan priestess 
^^serendipitously smitten with severus snape^^
**lurid lover to lucius** 
~hereditery helpmate for hagrid~ 
icq   # 152784873



From kellybroughton at netscape.net  Tue Apr  2 22:05:41 2002
From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:05:41 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] That's an interesting theory
Message-ID: <56EEB336.5FAAAF1F.B13B89B9@netscape.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37344

>
>   And with that huge age-gap between him and Charlie, there's a 
>definite possibility for a kid in there. And it would make sense. Why 
>else would they have Bill, then Charlie, and then suddenly no kids for 
>nine years before Percy?
>
>   There's a fic written by A'jes' Blue that deals with that 
>possibility. 
>
>   Demeter
>

The possibility of a missing child is very intriguing.... but there may be yet another explanation: the Weasleys just didn't want to have any more babies with Voldemort running around.

Or perhaps a blending of the two reasons.

Gah. I don't know.

-kel



__________________________________________________________________
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 dicentra at xmission.com  Tue Apr  2 23:44:49 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 23:44:49 -0000
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <176312568924.20020402150725@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a8dfph+b3v2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37345

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> 
> I can't remember any seers besides Trelawney playing a big
> role in the HP universe (but I am not extremely observant
> and have only read all the books twice, so far).
> 

What about Harry?  When he and Ron are making up disasters for their
homework, Harry's first prediction is that he will be in danger of
being burned, and the second is that he'll lose something valuable.
Those are the first two tasks to a T, and this is before the Goblet
coughed up Harry's name.  

As for predicting the third task, it's hard to say because Harry first
wants to say he'll come out the worse in a fight, Ron says he wanted
to do that one, and so Harry says he'll lose a bet. I suppose deciding
to grab the trophy at the same time as Cedric was a kind of bet, but
that's a rather broad interpretation, if you ask me.  

And did Harry come out the worse in a fight? He did get messed up in
that duel with Voldemort, but he's lucky to be alive. So when Ron
snatched that prediction up it means that Harry was supposed to be
killed but because he didn't write it in his homework, he wasn't
killed, and Ron inadvertently saved his life by taking the prediction.  

Nope, that's way too lame. I don't buy it for a minute.

--Dicentra  




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Tue Apr  2 23:57:06 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:57:06 -0800
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <a8dfph+b3v2@eGroups.com>
References: <a8dfph+b3v2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20315550559.20020402155706@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37346



Hi,

Tuesday, April 02, 2002, 3:44:49 PM, dicentra63 wrote:

> What about Harry?

I'm not attached to either Ron, Harry or Hermione being
seers.

All of them have said things that later came true in a way,
but I'm not convinced it means something.

In fact, I'd be a little annoyed if it turns out that Harry
has that ability, too.
He'd just be too perfect (imo).

And what about the 7th son of a 7th son thing?
Does it mean *that* child would definitely be a seer?
Or only have a bigger chance?

And non-7th kids still have a reasonable chance of being a
seer?

And what about girls? Is it the same for the 7th daughter of
a 7th daughter/son?

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  2 23:56:57 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:56:57 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
Message-ID: <F275BzoZVwWFYfYpwMI0001030c@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37347

Marina wrote:
>To me, Ron's supposed "predictions" don't look like predictions at
>all.  He just throws out random thoughts and speculations, and some of
>them hit the mark while others don't.  There's no indication of
>anything mystical about the things he says; we've never seen him go
>into a trance the way Trelawney did.  Might as well argue that
>Hermione is a seer -- after all, she correctly "predicted" that Snape
>wasn't a bad guy, and that Crookshanks didn't really kill Scabbers.

I would think that a power so omnipotent as "seeing" would take a great deal 
of control and training--which Ron doesn't really have. He has Trelawney, in 
a class that he *really* doesn't take very seriously. At first glance, 
Trelawney teaching Divination is almost like a legless man who teaches 
running, IMHO. She might be the product of a seer who was never fully 
trained--and therefore cannot reach her full potential, and goes into random 
trances and doesn't remember a word that she's said.

Liz (who thinks Ron could be a seventh son, but doesn't want to repeat any 
arguments)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Wed Apr  3 00:03:07 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:03:07 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] That's an interesting theory
Message-ID: <F171gl4rhYQYx3G5aYY0001ad66@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37348

>From: kellybroughton at netscape.net
>The possibility of a missing child is very intriguing.... but there may be 
>yet another explanation: the Weasleys just didn't want to have any more 
>babies with Voldemort running around.

The only real problem with this theory is that Ron is several months younger 
than Harry, thus Voldemort very likely wasn't just running around, he may 
well have been at the height of his power. We don't know Ginny's birthday, 
but she's at least six months younger than Harry, but even with a late 
birthday, she had to have been born before Harry defeated LV the first time, 
otherwise she'd be two years behind him in school, as Harry was fifteen 
months old when LV was defeated. This says nothing about Fred or George, who 
may well have been born into troubled times as well...do we have any canon 
about when LV started to raise his big stink?

J


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com  Wed Apr  3 00:05:58 2002
From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (scaryfairymary)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:05:58 -0000
Subject: Molly Weasley's name (was: Re: Names/Ginny)
In-Reply-To: <30B4A07D.3B92805A.025079A1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a8dh16+32j9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37349

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jefrigo21 at a... wrote:
> my question is then are the men in the house named for the 
Authorian peroid? Then the name Molly which seems to fit either Mary 
or Margert.  I want to point out that both names have royal people 
Queen(princess) Margret /and/or/ Mary.  If you think of it in that 
way the family of names make some sort of sense.  
> 
> I hope it makes some sort of sense.....
> 
> Joanna
> 
> 

Or perhaps it is a religious reference ie) the Virgin Mary mother of 
Jesus Christ.  I know it doesnt really fit into the royalty theme, 
but it's another possibility.  Perhaps it has many layered meaning, 
referring to a particular skill/talent/attribute of one or more of 
her children aswell as her own significance as a character.  The 
origins of the name Mary lie in hebrew meaning "bitterness" (yes I 
know, I was very disappointed when I discovered this!!!)Although I 
found that information in a book for naming children so I'm not 100% 
sure of its authenticity.
-Mary :)






From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Wed Apr  3 00:11:40 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:11:40 -0000
Subject: Cho Chang and other women
In-Reply-To: <a8d8v6+96tt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8dhbs+p5o9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37350

Uncmark wrote:

"I reread Cho's passages in GoF and Harry's attraction is more  
than 'she's pretty'."

Oh, absolutely true, but in the first introduction to Cho, in PoA, it 
says 

"Their seeker, Cho Chang was the only girl on their team.  She 
was shorter than Harry by about a head, and Harry couldn't help 
noticing, nervous as he was, that she was extremely pretty."

So, the inital attraction appears to be entirely physical.  But, the 
fact that she supplements that with her other attributes, I think is 
the result of having a strong, smart woman write the books.  I 
think also, that the Patil sisters are reportedly the prettiest girls in 
the school, but cannot hold Harry's or Ron's attention for the 
duration of a few hours during a ball is also a subtle feminist 
statement.   Really, I love the female role models--McGonagal, 
Hootch, Pomfrey, and Molly Weasley.  I think they all exemplify 
adult women in professional, nurturing, mentoring roles.  I 
particualrly like that Molly as a SAHM isn't flat or dull.   And, the 
important female students seem to be following suit, they're 
strong, smart, athletic, compassionate and nurturing.  But, 
they're also concerned with appearances--theirs and others, 
which is only human nature, particularly during the adolescent 
years.  

Uncmark also said:
" While all off Hogwart's seemed to be resenting and ridiculing 
Harry, Cho reached out with encouragement. Among the 
teenage girls I grew up  with, that caring is rare."

I'm very sorry to hear that.  Really,  the Cho's, Ginny's and 
Hermione's did exist in our world, unfortunately, the teenaged 
boys in our midst never noticed, because of our busy hair, big 
teeth, blemished skin, gangly legs or fondness for Hostess 
snack cakes.  In Rowling's world, it is easier to spot these gems, 
because they also happen to be very pretty.

"If Harry had been a little quicker and asked first, I think Cho 
would have accepted his invite  to the Yule Ball."

I'm sure she would have, too.  She seemed genuinely 
disappointed that he asked after she had already accepted 
Cedric's invitation. 

"I don't want to ship, but let me say that there is more to Cho than 
posters have given her credit. I look forward to seeing her in 
books 5,6,and 7."

Yeah, but it's gonna take a lot for her to recover from Cedric's 
death.  Even if he wasn't the love of her life or anything, it's got to 
be rough to lose your (equivalent to a ) prom date in such a 
tragedy.  I'd say, she's got a good depression ahead of her, 
which might be interesting to wittness.

Rita





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr  3 01:11:04 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 01:11:04 -0000
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <176312568924.20020402150725@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a8dkr8+9c8b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37351

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> > Well, a seer would have, presumably. :-)  That's what being a 
seer
> > means, after all -- being able to predict things that aren't
> > immediately obvious.
> 
> I thought it meant predicting things that haven't happened
> yet, obvious or not.

Well, if something is obvious, you don't need to be a seer to 
predict it.
> 
> But does it also mean a seer has to be able to predict
> things all the time?

Apparently not, if Trelawney is any indicaiton. :-)

The thing is, though, *everyone* makes correct predictions from time 
to time, simply through common sense or pure luck.  All of Ron's 
predictions are explainable by either one or the other.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From eleri at aracnet.com  Wed Apr  3 01:05:24 2002
From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:05:24 -0800
Subject: Names-Ginny
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020402165802.00b89b70@mail.aracnet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37352

OTR said:
> > > Of course, if it turns out that Ginny is short for Ginger...

And Phil said back:

> > And, now, I add an *extremely* minor point: I think Ginger is short
>for Virginia, too.  (Virginia Katherine McMath was better known as
>Ginger Rogers.)

And I say:

My grandma's name is Genevive,(which is one of the French forms of 
Guenevere,  which evolved into Jennifer) and she's been called Ginny, Jenny 
and Ginger. So it could be any of them, really.

Charlene





From siskiou at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  3 01:29:05 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:29:05 -0800
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <a8dkr8+9c8b@eGroups.com>
References: <a8dkr8+9c8b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <111321069953.20020402172905@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37353



Hi,

Tuesday, April 02, 2002, 5:11:04 PM, marinafrants wrote:

> The thing is, though, *everyone* makes correct predictions from time 
> to time, simply through common sense or pure luck.

Right.

So, what would an "acceptably" skilled seer be like?

We only have Trelawney, who's obviously considered a drama
queen by her peers.

How many predictions that aren't considered "obvious" would
you have to have under your belt to be considered the real
thing?

Someone (was it Dumbledore?) talked about divination in a way
that made me believe a lot of the wizard folk consider it
all a bunch of baloney, no matter what.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Wed Apr  3 01:35:14 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 01:35:14 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cho Chang and other women
Message-ID: <F6MMz9vwFfxCroomniU0000804d@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37354

Uncmark wrote:
>I don't want to ship, but let me say that there is more to Cho than
>posters have given her credit. I look forward to seeing her in
>books 5,6,and 7.

And then Rita wrote:
>Yeah, but it's gonna take a lot for her to recover from Cedric's
>death.  Even if he wasn't the love of her life or anything, it's got to
>be rough to lose your (equivalent to a ) prom date in such a
>tragedy.  I'd say, she's got a good depression ahead of her,
>which might be interesting to wittness.

To be honest, before beginning to reread GoF just recently, I'd basically 
written Cho off, but now I'm curious if she might not end up as one of the 
students that ends up helping Harry out in the war against Voldemort. After 
all, now she has a blood vendetta of her own, if her relationship with 
Cedric was all it's been painted to be.

J

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From boggles at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  3 01:51:49 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:51:49 -0600
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need
 glasses?
In-Reply-To: <20315550559.20020402155706@earthlink.net>
References: <a8dfph+b3v2@eGroups.com>
 <20315550559.20020402155706@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <p05010404b8d01086cdb9@[199.174.13.76]>

No: HPFGUIDX 37355

At 3:57 PM -0800 4/2/02, Susanne wrote:
>
>In fact, I'd be a little annoyed if it turns out that Harry
>has that ability, too.
>He'd just be too perfect (imo).

Well, at the very least, Harry seems to have a gift for dreaming 
true, especially when it's about Voldemort . . .

-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!



From spottydog at worldnet.att.net  Wed Apr  3 02:22:44 2002
From: spottydog at worldnet.att.net (CARRIE MUNGAI)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 18:22:44 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Names - Ginny
References: <a8da6p+8l2o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c1dab6$7162fbe0$f7a6fea9@s0023817978>

No: HPFGUIDX 37356

Ok, Ginny could be short for either: Virginia, Regina *or* Genevieve. 
I always thought the first and last names of those three were more 
likely. Of course, Ginny may even *be* her full name. I know 2 people 
called 'Vicky' that isn't short for Victoria. That's their full name.

But maybe not. Ginny's brothers all have names that have been 
shortened to something else. It's a pity we never got the see the 
sorting in CoS, then we would have known for sure :(

Rosie

http://magic-hogwarts.com

It has also occurred to me that "Percy" could be an abbreviated version of "Perseus" from Greek mythology. That Perseus turned out to be a hero and battled many evil characters. JKR does have several references to Latin root words in her writing, example: Fidelius Charm meaning loyal or faithful. It's just a thought so don't flame me. Spottydog


      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
            ADVERTISEMENT
           
     
     


________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jcurry1 at pdq.net  Wed Apr  3 01:28:57 2002
From: jcurry1 at pdq.net (Joyce Curry)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:28:57 -0600
Subject: re Weasley's "missing child" and Ron's and Molly's names
Message-ID: <3CAA5AD8.ABD5547E@pdq.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37357

Hello all,

Jo Serenadust wrote
I'm not saying that the Weasley's may not have had a reason to stop
having children for a period during Voldemort's reign of terror, but
so far I've seen no evidence to support the loss of a child in this
period.

It seems to me that if there is such a gap between Charlie and Percy,
that the most likely explanation lies with what was going on during that
period.  Who would want to have children while supreme evil seems to be
rising?  Perhaps Arthur and Molly were not always living together during
that period so opportunities to create more children were few and far
between.  Historically, birth rates drop when  a society is going
through great stress.  For instance, during the Great Depression in the
United States, many families delayed childbirth as much as they possibly
could.  The same happened in various European countries during WW II.
Following WW II, there were baby booms in the US and to a lesser degree,
Europe.  The possibility that Molly and Arthur chose not to have
children while Voldemort was rising should be considered.  Which also
makes one wonder why they began to have more children BEFORE Voldemort
was vanquished.  Did they have more hope for some reason we don't yet
know?

As for Ron's name, last fall I did some research on the Weasley family
names.  The name "Ronald" has a very noble history.  Most of the sources
I found give the meaning of Ronald as "powerful authority" or "advice
ruler".  So even if Ronald is not the name of an English king, it is
still a noble name.  Also, there are some that say the Ronald is derived
from the Norse name Ragnvald, who was a Norse king.  And if my memory
serves me, one of William the Conqueror's ancestors was Hrolfe
Ragnvaldsson.

Molly was a very common nickname in the US for Mary until the end of the
1800's.  Those of us who do genealogical research have to be on the
lookout whenever we encounter a "Molly" in our families.  A family might
have called her "Molly" but everything she ever signs or attests to is
as "Mary".  Records need to be checked very carefully to prevent
overlooking those "Marys" who are called "Molly" by everyone except
lawyers, clergymen, courts and official records.

Keep up the name discussions.  I always enjoy a good dissection of a
name.

Joyce C.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From Zorb17 at aol.com  Wed Apr  3 00:56:18 2002
From: Zorb17 at aol.com (Zorb17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:56:18 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasley Names - Ron the Seer
Message-ID: <fe.161b65c3.29dbad32@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37358

I've always found the King/Queen names Weasley connection interesting.  
Rather than trying to justify Percy and Ron's names, though, I think it could 
be a bit of clever foreshadowing along the Evil! and Death! lines.

The Weasleys are the foil family to the Malfoys, who currently seems to have 
the most power and status in the wizarding world.  Lucius Malfoy has been 
described as a very powerful man, one who was able to bully the school 
governors.  The fact that the Weasleys have royal names indicates to me that 
by the end of the series, the tables will have turned, and the redheads will 
be in charge. <waves "Arthur for Minister" flag>

Going along with this theory, then, Percy and Ron being out of the loop 
indicates to me that they might not be around for this Weasley reign for one 
reason or another.  Evil, dead, or both, perhaps?  This is all speculation, 
of course.

***

I don't have much to say about Ron the Seer.  If JKR says so, then I'll 
accept the evidence as valid, but until then, I'll remain skeptical.  
However, I wanted to share a fun way to reread the series: take everything 
Ron says as an unfulfilled prediciton.  It's hilarious and sort of scary!


Zorb


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr  3 03:29:57 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 03:29:57 -0000
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <111321069953.20020402172905@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a8dsvl+7h0d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37359

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Tuesday, April 02, 2002, 5:11:04 PM, marinafrants wrote:
> 
> > The thing is, though, *everyone* makes correct predictions from 
time 
> > to time, simply through common sense or pure luck.
> 
> Right.
> 
> So, what would an "acceptably" skilled seer be like?

Seems to me there are two possibilities.  One: a real seer could be 
somebody whose rate of successful non-obvious predictions was too 
high to be explained away by coincidence.  Of course, what 
constitutes "non-obvious" or "too high" is a very subjective 
matter.  

Two: a real seer could be someone whose predictions come during some 
sort of trance or spirit-channeling state.  This is what seems to 
happen with Trelawney, even if it doesn't happen often. 

> Someone (was it Dumbledore?) talked about divination in a way
> that made me believe a lot of the wizard folk consider it
> all a bunch of baloney, no matter what.

I don't know about that.  The students who aren't HRH seem to 
believe in it at least a little, and it is an accredited subject at 
Hogwarts, so it can't be totally discredited.  But it doesn't seem 
fully respectable either.  Which is not surprising, given how hard 
it is to recognize or define.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From nesbitaa at purdue.edu  Wed Apr  3 00:40:54 2002
From: nesbitaa at purdue.edu (oboakk)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:40:54 -0000
Subject: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <F275BzoZVwWFYfYpwMI0001030c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a8dj2m+bjj1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37360

As we've been discussing Weasley birth order and such, I've been 
thinking about the Ron the Seer idea, and I came up with a theory 
that is entirely selfish in that it supports my belief that Ron is, 
in fact, a Seer.  It's also sort of a bad theory because it can't be 
disproved since that would involve knowing Ron's thoughts.  This 
isn't really an advantage for me, since it can't be proven, either.  
All right, here we go:

_Ron_the_Reluctant_Seer_

Ron, as a child, noticed that he sometimes `sensed' or `knew' things 
that had not yet happened, and thought he might be a Seer.  However, 
he noticed how his family and others in the wizarding world viewed 
Seers and Divination and decided not to tell anyone about his `Sight' 
since he thought people wouldn't take him seriously.

As he grew, Ron learned to act as skeptical of Divination as he 
believed the rest of the wizarding world was.  When he started 
Trelawney's class, and found out that most of the other students 
(with the exception of Lavender and Parvati) thought she was a batty 
old fraud, and decided that he *did not* want anyone to think he was 
like her.

Ron played it off like Divination was all a big joke, since that's 
what everyone else seemed to think, and because he wasn't sure he was 
even really a Seer.  He keeps having visions (but not in the same 
fashion as Trelawney's `true prediction'), and sometimes he mentions 
them, but only in passing, as if it's just an idea he had.  He also 
makes sure he `predicts' the wrong thing sometimes because he doesn't 
want anyone to find out.  He also doesn't base _all_ of his 
predictions on his Sight, since he doesn't really trust it yet, but 
instead goes with his gut instinct, even if he may have had visions 
that oppose it.

I know this is all incredibly far-fetched and lacking in canonical 
support, but I'd like to have some feedback.

Abby






From huntleyl at mssm.org  Wed Apr  3 03:58:23 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:58:23 -0500
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
References: <a8dfph+b3v2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003201c1dac3$cd6041c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37361


Dicentra said:
>What about Harry?  When he and Ron are making up disasters for their
>homework, Harry's first prediction is that he will be in danger of
>being burned, and the second is that he'll lose something valuable.
>Those are the first two tasks to a T, and this is before the Goblet
>coughed up Harry's name.  

I've been meaning to bring this up for awhile.  I mean, when you think about it, there's alot more evidence towards Harry being a seer than Ron.  He dreams true, etc.  My idea with the divination homework scene was that JKR was disguising her foreshadowing by trying to trick us into thinking that it was just humorous fluff.

Dicentra continued:
>As for predicting the third task, it's hard to say because Harry first
>wants to say he'll come out the worse in a fight, Ron says he wanted
>to do that one, and so Harry says he'll lose a bet. I suppose deciding
>to grab the trophy at the same time as Cedric was a kind of bet, but
>that's a rather broad interpretation, if you ask me.  

This is where the Ron-is-a-seer theory falls apart -- nowhere (in GoF anyway) does Ron come off worse in a fight -- I mean, in Harry and Ron's fight, Harry definitely seems to be coming off worse. *can't think of any other Ron-related fights in GoF* And there *are* a couple of ways to look at Harry "coming off worse in a fight" that make it plausible.  

First, on the whole scope of the battle against Voldy for which (for us at least) Harry is the main figurehead, Voldy definitely came out on top in GoF.  I mean, he's all -- bodified.  Yes, Harry got away, but that's *all* he got away with.  Voldy is one up on him now.

Another way to think of it is this:  think of the third task as the "fight" -- at the end of which Harry is portkeyed to the graveyard and forced to participate in V's rebirthing party.  Definitely coming off worse there.  Be better if he had just forfeited from the beginning...

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Wed Apr  3 04:27:28 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:27:28 -0600
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer needglasses?
References: <a8dfph+b3v2@eGroups.com>
	 <20315550559.20020402155706@earthlink.net> <p05010404b8d01086cdb9@[199.174.13.76]>
Message-ID: <3CAA84B0.E8D8D037@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37362

Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote:
> 
> At 3:57 PM -0800 4/2/02, Susanne wrote:
> >
> >In fact, I'd be a little annoyed if it turns out that Harry
> >has that ability, too.
> >He'd just be too perfect (imo).
> 
> Well, at the very least, Harry seems to have a gift for dreaming
> true, especially when it's about Voldemort . . .

I wouldn't call this prediction though. I consider more of a clairvoyant
type of situation. He's not predicting anything, he's watching as
something unfolds. 

Laura Huntley wrote:
>This is where the Ron-is-a-seer theory falls apart -- nowhere
>(in GoF anyway) does Ron come off worse in a fight -- ...

Ron hasn't come off worse in a fight ... yet. Remember that it was in
POA that he predicted Harry's windfall of money, and that didn't happen
until GoF. Perhaps we haven't seen the betrayal yet. Perhaps the
betrayal and coming off worse in a fight happen at the same time?
Perhaps Ron will betray Harry and end up being injured or killed by
trying to make amends?

Also...who's prediction is it? Is it the person who takes the
prediction, or the person who made it up?

Susanne wrote:
> I'm not attached to either Ron, Harry or Hermione being
> seers.
> 
> All of them have said things that later came true in a way,
> but I'm not convinced it means something.

I was attached to Ron being a seer, but that's just because I want him
to have some glory. Then I started thinking about Harry, and well..Harry
already has so much, especially Defense against the Dark Arts that I
think him being a Seer would be overkill. But what about Hermione? I
actually don't remember her making *any* predictions, just shooting down
everyone else's predictions. The thing I find interesting is that she
criticizes Trelawney and her class, but when Hermione leaves, she
doesn't leave Divination altogether. She just switches the type of
Divination to Arithmancy. Isn't that prediction using numbers? I think
Hermione will end up being quite spectacular in that subject. Should we
be watching Hermione instead of Ron and/or Harry?

-Katze



From ohtoresonate at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  3 05:03:34 2002
From: ohtoresonate at yahoo.com (ohtoresonate)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 05:03:34 -0000
Subject: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <a8dal0+fn3q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8e2f6+spk8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37363

OTR (me):
> > Hmm...I always thought Fake!Moody stabbed Harry and not Ron.  
> > Really, Ron's guilty of abandoning (not betraying) Harry.

"flower_fairy12" <graceofmyheart at h...>:
> Yes, I never thought of Moody. But I don't exactly think that Harry 
> thought of him as a friend. He was always a little weary of him. 

Yes, by no stretch of the imagination could Fake!Moody be considered 
Harry's friend in the same mode as Ron.  But Fake!Moody had donned a 
mask in the form of the "nurturing teacher" (similar to Lupin's true 
self in PoA) while harboring sinister motives deep, WAAAAYYYYY deep, 
that are completely contrary to his appearance.  Definitely a stab and 
definitely in the back and definitely NOT one of the out-in-the-open 
enemies in the same mode as Snape and Draco.

Digression: Have we, in our attempt to discourage uncivilized 
behavior, encouraged the uncivilized to go underground?  I'm trying to 
convince myself that I don't prefer falsely positive forces to hidden 
negative ones.  I guess that's why people are prone to lap up false 
flattery.

Anyhoo...

OTR (me):
> > As to Ron's overall ability to "see," let's not ignore the times 
> >when 
> > Ron has jumped to the WRONG conclusions.  True, some of his 
> >assertions 

"flower_fairy12" <graceofmyheart at h...>:
> Yes, but I think he has predicted it right, many more times than 
> wrong.

My impression is that he's about even.  If I ever "really break my 
leg," I might have enough time to draw hash marks and REALLY keep 
score...but until then... <shrug>

> So he may have jumped to conclusions on Snape and Draco 
> Malfoy, but then they are two very complex characters. Most readers 
> proably jumped to the same conclusions surrounding their behaviour 
> (eg. Snape trying to *kill* Harry). I know I did. Who would have 
> thought Snape the sarcastic, snide and horrible to Harry, guy would 
> actually try to save him? ;)

That might be the point, actually.  Let's say that Ron is really good 
as extrapolating the forces at work in shaping the events to come.  He 
can then see how the future will be.  (Aside: then Ron should do well 
in arithmancy as taught by Prof. VECTOR).  Sort of like Superman with 
his x-ray vision being privy to info that the rest of us aren't.

But in letting his prejudices against certain people cloud his sight, 
Ron misses important indicators.  Until he lets go of the simplistic 
and ultimately unreliable "rule of thumb" that only bad people do bad 
things and only the good can effect moral turns of events, Ron will 
not reach his full potential.

:) OTR, not interesting in simple labels of complicated people, even 
made-up ones
 
   
 
 

     




From catlady at wicca.net  Wed Apr  3 06:29:27 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 06:29:27 -0000
Subject: Weasleys Weasleys Weasleys / divination / Dick
Message-ID: <a8e7g7+p9tc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37364

Philip Nel wrote:

> Perhaps the Weasley children develop -- or are in the process of
> developing -- a response to their family's poverty. Charlie and
> Bill get good and/or interesting jobs (snip) Charlie's adventurous
> and scientifically minded; Bill's job combines adventure with
> status, but his status resides more in being "cool" (to cite 
> Harry's first impression of him) than in having a prominent job at 
> the Ministry.

IMHO Bill (and maybe Charlie) may not have experienced Weasley 
poverty first-hand. If the Weasley financial difficulties result from 
trying to stretch enough income for a family of four to support a 
family of seven, the difficulties would have been much less back when 
there were only two kids. When Arthur and Molly have FIVE kids at 
Hogwarts, even if I am right that Hogwarts doesn't charge tuition 
because it has a huge endowment, that is still FIVE sets of textbooks 
and school supplies and uniforms and whatever. When they only had TWO 
kids at Hogwarts and only had to pay for TWO sets of those things, 
they might have had enough money left over for supplying new wands 
and new broomsticks and new dress robes... 

Kel wrote:

> The possibility of a missing child is very intriguing.... but there
> may be yet another explanation: the Weasleys just didn't want to 
> have any more babies with Voldemort running around.

My fingercounting says Percy was born in 1976, the twins in 1978, Ron 
in 1980 (like Harry), and Ginny in 1981. All those boys (and 10/12 
chance for Ginny) were born before Harry disintegrated Voldemort on 
October 31, 1981. 

Jake Storm wrote:

> This says nothing about Fred or George, who may well have been born
> into troubled times as well...do we have any canon about when LV 
> started to raise his big stink?

At the Dursley doorstep (chapter 1 of book 1), McGonagall complains
that the wizard folk are being careless in their celebrations and 
Dumbledore replies forgively that they haven't had much to celebrate 
these last 11 years. I figure that means that they've been freaking 
out over Voldemort since 1970, which suggests that the first Dark 
Mark killings (which would have been thought to be one-off insane 
tragedies) occured in 1969. 

My fingercounting also tells me that Charlie was born in 1967 and 
Bill in 1966. If Arthur and Molly had originally intended to have 
more than two children at a time, they could have had another in 
1968 or 9, before the Bad Years (my name for the Voldemort Reign of 
Terror). 

A possibility is that Arthur and Molly only intended to have two 
children, or not to have another two until the first two grew up 
(wizarding lifespan seems to be at least twice Muggle lifespan, based 
on JKR's statement that Dumbledore is 150 and McGonagall 70, and so 
it may be that witches remain fertile until like age 80 and therefore 
can space their children to suit their income). Then something shook 
them up so that they decided to keep making babies until the Dark 
Lord was defeated, as an act of defiance against Death and Darkness
on behalf of Life and Light. 

Scary Fairy Mary wrote about the name Molly:

> The origins of the name Mary lie in hebrew meaning "bitterness" 
> (yes I know, I was very disappointed when I discovered this!!!) 
> Although I found that information in a book for naming children so 
> I'm not 100%  sure of its authenticity.

It correlates with what my mother and many of the friends said: the 
name "Miriam" (which was my mother's name) means "bitter sea" from 
Marah meaning bitterness and Yam meaning sea. I know that Yam does 
mean sea. Mary, mother of Jesus, was actually named Miriam, so you 
can at least consider yourself to be named after the sea rather than 
after bitterness ... which has a lovely, altho' co-incidental, link 
to the Latin word Mare for sea, like the Virgin Mary is Stella Maris, 
star of the sea. Another of her titles is Queen of Angels, thus 
making Mary the name of a Queen *snicker*. 

But Molly is the name of a queen, too ... in the first half of the 
twentieth century (I almost said 'this century'!), girls whose Hebrew 
name was Malkuh, which means queen, were often called Molly as their 
American name. No, I don't think any of the Weasleys are Jewish, but 
as long as we're free-associating on names... 

Spottydog wrote:

> It has also occurred to me that "Percy" could be an abbreviated 
> version of "Perseus" from Greek mythology. 

Yes, it could. And that could lead to more delightful complications 
... Perseus is a constellation, so was he named after a Black? And 
how does this relate to 'Severus Snape' being an anagram of 'Perseus 
Evans'?  
               
Milz wrote:

> I have the impression that she partially based the Weasleys upon 
> them. I'll begin with some background and review, before tackling
> Percy issues. Mitford background: They were an aristocratic family.
> Nancy's father was a baron. The father was mildly eccentric, fond
> of hunting and other bucolic activities, preferring to live in the
> countryside.

That goes along with the person who said that the Weasleys are 
typical English Upper Class Eccentric, with their poverty a part of 
their eccentricity, and accents posher than any of the other 
characters except the Malfoys. Myself, I've always thought the 
Weasleys were Common.

Suzanne wrote:

> Someone (was it Dumbledore?) talked about divination in a way that 
> made me believe a lot of the wizard folk consider it all a bunch of
> baloney, no matter what.

I think it was Hermione quoting McGonagall saying that Divination is
a very *imprecise* branch of magic.

Chris M. Dickson wrote:

> in the same way, Richard would be known as Dick. As it happens,
> this is a common nickname for the penis. A rather less vulgar and
> more childish alternative is "Percy".

Then you would have to theorize about PETER Pettigrew....

Seriously, I am very much affected by the phrase 'Tom, Dick, and 
Harry' and the central importance of a Harry (Potter) and a Tom 
(Riddle) in the saga. I keep my eyes open for a character named Dick.




From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Apr  3 07:45:44 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 02:45:44 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasley poverty (was: Weasleys Weasleys Weasleys ion / Dick
Message-ID: <164.b84db41.29dc0d28@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37365

Catlady:
> IMHO Bill (and maybe Charlie) may not have experienced Weasley 
> poverty first-hand. If the Weasley financial difficulties result from 
> trying to stretch enough income for a family of four to support a 
> family of seven, the difficulties would have been much less back when 
> there were only two kids. When Arthur and Molly have FIVE kids at 
> Hogwarts, even if I am right that Hogwarts doesn't charge tuition 
> because it has a huge endowment, that is still FIVE sets of textbooks 
> and school supplies and uniforms and whatever. When they only had TWO 
> kids at Hogwarts and only had to pay for TWO sets of those things, 
> they might have had enough money left over for supplying new wands 
> and new broomsticks and new dress robes... 
> 
> <snip>   
> Milz wrote:
> 
> > I have the impression that she partially based the Weasleys upon 
> > them. I'll begin with some background and review, before tackling
> > Percy issues. Mitford background: They were an aristocratic family.
> > Nancy's father was a baron. The father was mildly eccentric, fond
> > of hunting and other bucolic activities, preferring to live in the
> > countryside.
> 
> That goes along with the person who said that the Weasleys are 
> typical English Upper Class Eccentric, with their poverty a part of 
> their eccentricity, and accents posher than any of the other 
> characters except the Malfoys. Myself, I've always thought the 
> Weasleys were Common.
> 

You've made me wonder just how long the Weasleys *have* been poor.
We know they are a distinguished pure-blood family, which seems in wizarding 
terms to make them aristocratic, like the Malfoys. But of course, the British 
aristocracy is frequently impoverished, and not just through eccentricity. It 
may be that Arthur or one of his forbears was a younger son, who didn't 
inherit, and therefore went into the Ministry, just as younger sons of the 
British aristocracy who didn't marry for money would often go into the 
clergy. But I also wonder whether the lack of wealth may be a direct 
consequence of failing to toe the line. It sounds like Arthur's been passed 
over in the past because Fudge holds him in low regard. Or perhaps failure to 
co-operate with Voldemort during his ascendency (or sinking funds into the 
fight against him) somehow forced poverty upon them then.

OTOH, he is a Head of Department now. Shouldn't that command a respectable 
salary?  Why are they still *so* poor? Why do they have nothing (essentially) 
in the bank? Do they have debts from the past, or worse, except for fans of 
Arthur With Imperius, could Arthur be being blackmailed because he *failed* 
to defy Voldemort? Another little skeleton for Elkins to play with in her 
cupboard (or closet, if she prefers!)

Incidentally, I've always been intrigued as to why Ginny should have needed 
so many textbooks of her own, aside from that twit Lockhart's of course. 
Surely the same Standard Book of Spells Grade 1 etc etc could have served for 
each of the Weasleys in turn. Although I suspect much property might  need 
replacing after the twins had had their hands on it, at that point in the 
cycle there are presumably two of anything that might be outgrown. If 
anything, there should be extra stuff that isn't needed.

As to the names, I can't make anything of them as a group. I did once make 
the connection between Ginny and Virginia (with its overtones of purity) and 
whichever centaur it was saying that the innocent are always the first 
victims, or words to that effect. No, that won't do! Ronan: 'Always the 
innocent are the first victims'. And of course, in CoS, Ginny was very nearly 
the one true victim. 

Eloise,
who having in a fit of boredom read the Humongous Bigfile, has taken off her 
Easter bonnet and donned sackcloth and ashes to atone for the many sins she 
has been unwittingly committing. (And can't work out where to put the commas 
to best effect in that last sentence and is resisting a sudden overwhelming 
temptation to finish with a very long and irritating line of exclamation 
marks.)

Speak roughly to your little boy
And beat him when he sneezes
He only does it to annoy
Because he knows it teases.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From meboriqua at aol.com  Wed Apr  3 13:01:41 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 13:01:41 -0000
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <003201c1dac3$cd6041c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a8eufl+qctl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37366

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
   
> This is where the Ron-is-a-seer theory falls apart -- nowhere (in 
GoF anyway) does Ron come off worse in a fight -- I mean, in Harry and 
Ron's fight, Harry definitely seems to be coming off worse. *can't 
think of any other Ron-related fights in GoF* And there *are* a couple 
of ways to look at Harry "coming off worse in a fight" that make it 
plausible.>

Before I respond to this, I must firmly assert myself as one who does 
NOT believe Ron is a Seer.  No way, no how.  However, Ron certainly 
came off worse in his heated argument with Hermione after the Yule 
Ball.  IIRC, she left him rather speechless in the common room.  It's 
still coincidence to me, especially because Ron is more likely to have 
arguments with others, given his history of having a bad temper over 
petty things.

As far as Seeing goes, I do think Harry is the one with the gift.  Ron 
can sometimes be perceptive, like when he mentioned that it's possible 
for Dumbledore to be fooled by a really clever wizard and Hermione is, 
IMO, quite good at reading people.  These are not things that would 
make one a Seer.  Even when watching television, I can sometimes 
"predict" what a character will do or say simply because I know the 
show and the characters well enough (or the writing is bad).  I can 
also sometimes "predict" how a student of mine, a friend, or a family 
member will respond to a certain situation for the same reasons: I 
know these people well enough.

Seeing to me is not something that comes up randomly in conversation.  
It is something that one can do in dreams (like Harry), or in a 
trance-like state (Trelawney) or possibly even induce voluntarily if 
it is controlled.  My mom has been known to "See" (really!) and her 
experiences were always accompanied by a strange feeling or a total 
unexplainable knowledge of being correct.  I know this sounds strange, 
but this is what I think true Seeing is.  It's a feeling, not a 
comment made in passing.  I agree with whoever said that we can all 
make correct predictions.  It is the ones who have the gift (like 
Harry or Trelawney, even though most of the time she's a "right old 
fraud") who can predict specific events that contain specific names, 
places and experiences.

I don't think I'd want to be a Seer, though.  It seems like an awful 
burden.

--jenny from ravenclaw***********




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr  3 14:43:20 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:43:20 -0000
Subject: FILK: Pettigrew
Message-ID: <a8f4e8+tvlj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37367

PETTIGREW
To the tune of "Billie Jean" by Michael Jackson

Scene: the Shrieking Shack.  Sirius, with a little help from Remus,
tells Harry who was really responsible for the Potters' death.

SIRIUS:
He was always the weakest link, that lousy fink
How young and foolish we were to think he was our friend
(He was with Voldemort all along)
He was never our friend
(He was with Voldemort all along)

I told him 'bout the Fidelius Charm, and he plotted harm
Set up the Potters to buy the farm, he was no friend
(He was with Voldemort all along)

REMUS:
I really wish you'd told me what you had planned to do
If I had known I could've helped
SIRIUS:
I really wish I'd told you exactly what I'd planned
I hid the switch from you
When you deserved to know the truth

REMUS AND SIRIUS:
Pettigrew is really Scabbers
He's just a rat who claimed he was our friend
But his ruse is at an end
He claimed he was our friend, but his ruse is at an end

SIRIUS
I never knew that he chose to fight on the Dark Lord's side
Till I saw firsthand what he had planned at Voldy's command
(He was with Voldemort all along)
Then I knew I've been had; it's my fault James and Lily are dead
(They are dead)

When we faced off in a London street, he screamed at me
The street exploded, and he was gone -- I was so stunned
(He escaped to the sewers as a rat)

REMUS:
I really wish you'd told me what you had planned to do
If I had known I could've helped
SIRIUS:
All the things I know now -- I wish I'd known them then;
'Twas all Pete's cunning plan; got me sent to Azkaban

SIRIUS AND REMUS:
Pettigrew is really Scabbers
He's just a rat who claimed he was our friend
But his ruse is at an end
He claimed he was our friend, but his ruse is at an end
Pettigrew is really Scabbers
Pettigrew is really Scabbers
Pettigrew is really Scabbers

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Wed Apr  3 14:47:48 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:47:48 +0000
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer needglasses?
Message-ID: <F68c8AU2Z8YrjoTrcHO0001a3ac@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37368

>From: Katze <jdumas at kingwoodcable.com>
>The thing I find interesting is that she
>criticizes Trelawney and her class, but when Hermione leaves, she
>doesn't leave Divination altogether. She just switches the type of
>Divination to Arithmancy. Isn't that prediction using numbers? I think
>Hermione will end up being quite spectacular in that subject. Should we
>be watching Hermione instead of Ron and/or Harry?

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that Arithmancy is, in JKR's world, just 
the magic of numbers, and not, as in our own world, divination by way of 
numerology. If that were the case, then I'd think that Hermione was being 
not just foolish, but downright ignorant, when she called Divination 'wooly' 
but still talked up Arithmancy.

I think JKR just liked that it sounded like 'arithmatic' and that it would, 
therefore, be a plausible subject in a wizarding school. If Arithmancy turns 
out to be numerology, I'll be sorely upset.

J

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From weaver at schnoogle.com  Wed Apr  3 10:55:14 2002
From: weaver at schnoogle.com (... Weaver ...)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 02:55:14 -0800
Subject: LONG - About names, Sirius's pedigree, weight issues, Percy.
Message-ID: <200204031055.g33AtEc06572@mail23.bigmailbox.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37369

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020403/da121556/attachment.ksh>

From tabouli at unite.com.au  Wed Apr  3 14:44:55 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:44:55 +1000
Subject: FF/TBAY: The Captain returns
Message-ID: <005101c1db24$8d2062a0$8b31c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37370

After a long voyage to Adelaide and back, Captain Tabouli at last turns her tiller for the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS.  She steers skilfully around the headland and through the perils of Romance Reef (already floating with small, Florentine fragments), looking forward to the comforts of her cabin, when a terrible sight slides into view.  In her absence, Theory Bay appears not only to have been buffeted by storms, but invaded by members of the local council.  The same members who, before her departure, declared the entire Bay a blot on the HPFGU coastline, and vowed to have it dredged and reclaimed for the construction of a canon museum, in which ancient topics would be on permanent display and councillors would be assigned to guide listmembers through weekly exhibitions of new canon fodder.

While Captain Tabouli has always enjoyed wandering through canon museums, the menacing ring of cranes and bulldozers around Theory Bay weighs heavy on her heart.  If the council naysayers prevail, and Theory Bay is drained, she will never be able to visit the museum without a pang of grief for the ships and whimsical vessels that once sailed there.  Averting her eyes from the glittering machines, she climbs aboard and descends to her cabin, where her TAGS (Tabouli's Acronym Generation Service) intray is bulging with applications.  Resting on the top of the pile is a note from one of her most trusted spies with the legend "Evidence of mutinous musings in your absence: urgent".  She puts aside her Captain's hat, dons her TAGS uniform, and reaches for her acronym generator, her brows drawing together as she reads.

Ama:
> R.I.C.K.'S.T.H.E.B.O.S.S.? S.O.P.E? Yikes. Tabouli's
gonna kick our hineys when she gets back.<

Grey Wolf:
> Well, we'll just have to make sure she doesn't know about it, won't we? 
;-) ::wink, wink::<

At this second comment, which bears what appears to be a large pawprint, Tabouli chuckles, her kicking foot twitching quietly to itself.  While she welcomes acronyms from other providers, and is always on the lookout for new TAGS staff, she is mildly amused that people think they can escape the glare of her spies and her All Seeing Eye...

Grey Wolf (filling in for Tabouli's Acronym-machine while she's on holiday):

> R.I.C.K.'S.T.H.E.B.O.S.S, anyone? (Ron Identified with 
the Chess Knigth: Surpasses his Triunfant, Heroic or Excelent Brothers 
Only by Self-Sacrifice<

Tabouli considers this application, which addresses the worthy and popular theory that Ron Is Doomed (RID?), and enters it into her acronym generator.  It gurgles thoughtfully for a moment, and then sadly issues a piece of black-bordered paper with S.A.C.R.I.F.I.C.E. (Sacrifice Awaits Condemned Ron, Insidiously Foreshadowed In Chess Exploits) printed on it.  She nods regally, and inserts it next to RICK'S THE BOSS in her files.

Ama:
> I'm beginning to develop some cockeyed
notions of how Harry could be killed and brought back,
and I know why I have a problem with it! It reeks of
my bete noire, Soap Opera Plot Extreme! Alright, I'll
have faith in JKR. Just because I can't do it doesn't
mean she can't construct a fantastic climax without
going the Way of the S.O.P.E.<

The second application addresses what appears to be a more general distaste for formulaic plots. The acronym generator whirs and chugs for a bit longer on this one, but eventually suggests that those who despise the thought of soap opera plots bubbling their way into HP do so because they are S.O.P.H.I.S.T.I.C.A.T.E.D. (Society Opposing Plots Hackneyed, Insipid, Sentimental, Trafficking In Cliches And Too Easily Decipherable).


"talondg" <trog at w...> wrote: 
>> We are also told that Voldy intends to kill Harry and his father.
>> Lilly Potter is not on the target list - why? It's not like Voldy has
>> any problem killing off innocents. 
>>
>> I cannot help but think that she was promised to Wormtail, as a reward....

Dicentra:
>Omigosh! Have we had this theoretical variation yet? Does it have a
name! Tabouli's out for a bit, so maybe we'll have to wait for an
acronym. (Can I suggest "M.A.K.E.M.E.B.A.R.F."?)<

A strange nausea comes over Tabouli as she reads the third, and most complex theory in her intray.  She pops a soothing mint in her mouth, and feeds Dicentra's suggestion into the generator.  It spews out "Monstrous Activity: Keeping Evil Men Entertained By Allocating Rescued Females", and then offers another option of its own accord: FOUL SLAVERY (Females Offer Unlimited Levity: Save Lily And Voldemort Eagerly Rewards You!).

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Wed Apr  3 15:28:21 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:28:21 +1000
Subject: Alliteration, Weasling, Snape: A Greek Vampire?
Message-ID: <005201c1db24$8eed3360$8b31c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37371

Olly:
> There do seem to be an innordinate amount of matching names... Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin, Helga Hufflepuff, Rowena Ravenclaw, Florean Fortesque, Pavarti Patil.<

Ahh, good ol' JKR, a fellow fan of alliteration.  Actually, I can feel a sinister chuckle going on here... as Wizarding World Women apparently adopt that ol' "adopt your husband's surname" tradition, perhaps JKR is, in fact, giving us subtle clues from which to draw shipping predictions.

(sinister laughter)

Perhaps we should be matching our female characters with men of alliterative surname!  Pansy Potter, Sybil Snape, Ginny Goyle, Lavender Longbottom, Hermione, er, Hagrid... er... hmmm.  Hasty backpedalling.  Though you must admit, it would be entertaining to the entire Weasley brotherhood fighting amongst themselves to turn the sweet new third year girl into Wallflower Weasley...

Cultural aside: a lot of Australian Chinese families I know choose names with the same initial for their children, e.g. Adeline/Aaron/Anna, or Kelvin/Katherine, etc.  My theory is that this is a way of maintaining the Chinese "generation name" tradition, where same sex siblings share the first component of their two-part name, e.g. sisters called Mei-Chen, Mei-Mei and Mei-Ling.

Abby:
> Oh, I do love the Missing Weasley Child and the naming pattern 
theories, but I think there might be another problem here.  As we 
know that Ron is short for Ronald, couldn't Bill also be short for 
William (or something like it)?  It just messes up the whole thing...
W, C, F, G, P, R..?<

Eeeg, sounds like one of those alarming things they put on IQ tests: "What is the next letter in the following sequence?"

Athena:
> You can become a vampire if you are excommunicated or if a vampire 
looks in the direction of your mother while she is pregnant with 
you.  When you die - then you're a vampire.  In Greece, anyone with 
red hair is suspect.  (Only because red hair isn't common there and 
I mean to cast no aspersions toward the Weasleys!)<

Ha, more fuel for the SUAVE (Snape's Unquestionably A Vampire Evil) society!  Perhaps Snape thought he could take on Fluffy because he *grew up* amid three headed dogs in Greece, where his mother was eyed by a vicious vampire when he was in utero.  This could also explain his lank locks... he's hiding the fiery evidence of his undead heritage with Sableslick Potion.  It leaves his hair oily, but he doesn't mind, as the grease reminds him of his boyhood homeland...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  3 15:28:40 2002
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:28:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy's Character Flaw  (was:Re: Official Discussion Questions ...: Question #1)
In-Reply-To: <a8bed8+u3ib@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020403152840.25155.qmail@web14607.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37372


--- uncmark <uncmark at yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

> Agreed he probably has more ambition than his Dad,
> but the sorting 
> Hat DID place him in Gryffindor! 

I haven't thought this out much yet, but has anyone
considered the fact that the Sorting Hat may have
wavered between two choices with Percy, same as it did
with Harry?

If that's a possibility, which house do you think
would have been the other option? Would that change
any of the opinions voiced on this subject so far?

Sheryll, thinking about it and trying to come with a
good answer

=====
"We need to be united and strong. We'll have losses and scares, sure. And you'll be there for each other, helping each other through the bad times."
 blpurdom - Harry Potter and the Psychic Serpent, Chapter 26

______________________________________________________________________ 
Find, Connect, Date! http://personals.yahoo.ca



From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Apr  3 15:33:50 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 15:33:50 -0000
Subject: That's an interesting theory --> Re: Percy's Character Flaw
In-Reply-To: <a8d725+4f3p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8f7cu+a7tn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37373

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "demeter918" <Demeter918 at A...> wrote:
> >    That plays off the theory that perhaps Percy was told 
endlessly 
> > that if he didn't behave, if he didn't follow the rules, if he 
> didn't 
> > follow all the rules, then one of his little siblings would die. 
> And 
> > so would 'mummy' and himself. Pretty scary stuff for a five-year 
> old. 
And --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" <jmmears at p...> replied > 
> 
> Is there any canon at all to suggest that Percy alone among the 
> Weasley children was browbeaten into behaving and following 
rules?  

There is a combination of canon and the psychology of children which 
combines to show that Percy may very well have been the child to 
whom the importance of following rules was most drummed into in his 
formative years. If you work from the presumption that he was 15 in 
1991, when PS begins, then he was born in or around 1975, which 
meant that he was a little boy - 5 or 6 years old - at the end of 
Voldemort's first reign of terror. 

If you look at the comment in PS that Voldemort had been terrorising 
the population for about 10-11 years before 1981 (i.e. 1970-1981) 
and follow the timeline that puts Charlie born in 67ish and Bill no 
later than 67 (since we don't know how much older than Charlie he 
is, and it is possible to have 2 children who aren't twins born in 
the same year, if one is January and one December) then by the time 
Voldemort was likely deemed a thing to be feared, Bill would've 
already been 7 or 8 and Charlie 5ish - before that, afawk, there was 
nothing Really Really Bad to fear.

Without getting into current situations, I did read an article about 
police in Israel going on children's television programmes to tell 
the kids about staying safe, following their parents' rules, 
reporting suspicious people, etc. Psychologists know that this kind 
of rule-following, while making kids safer at the time, has lasting 
psychological effects. 

And to parallel PS and Percy, given that he was under 6ish, but with 
up to 4 younger siblings, during the later days of Voldemort's rise, 
and given what we know about the Weasleys, I find it *very 
reasonable speculation* to determine that it was *very likely* that 
he was given rules from a young age - rules to keep himself safe, 
rules to keep his toddler siblings safe. 

Yes, the "Was there a son between Charlie & Percy whose death or 
disapearance made Percy even more of a rule follower" question is 
complete speculation but then again, so are so many other topics on 
this list. Some speculation has more canon to peg itself to, some 
has less - but where there is canon basis, that speculation is 
reasonable and in the absence of new canon, I think (IMHO) de riguer 
(which I think I spelled wrong)


heidi
http://www.fictionalley.org

> I know that lots of wild theories have been proposed lately but 
> usually the poster at least attempts to tie them to some sort of 
> canon.  I've always believed that Percy has his *own* personality, 
> and that even though he was brought up under more or less the same 
> conditions as his siblings, he's just perfectionistic and fussy 
> about rules because he's, well...Percy.  I realize that isn't 
really 
> terribly exciting, but I can't see JKR coming up with some deeply 
> traumatic reason for each family member having their own 
individual 
> identity.
> 
> 
> Demeter again: 
> >    And with that huge age-gap between him and Charlie, there's a 
> > definite possibility for a kid in there. And it would make 
sense. 
> Why 
> > else would the have Bill, then Charlie, and then suddenly no 
kids 
> for 
> > nine years before Percy?
> > 
> >    There's a fic written by A'jes' Blue that deals with that 
> > possibility. 
> 
>  
> Again, is there any canon to support this notion that there was a 
> kid born between Charlie and Percy?  There is a 10 year gap 
between 
> me and my older sister and there is also a similar 10 year gap in 
my 
> husband's family.  There were no deaths or miscarriages; it was 
just 
> a matter of deciding to have one more child before it was too 
late.  
> I'm not saying that the Weasley's may not have had a reason to 
stop 
> having children for a period during Voldemort's reign of terror, 
but 
> so far I've seen no evidence to support the loss of a child in 
this 
> period.  I fear that the list is turning into a fanfic generating 
> machine.
> 
> 
> Jo Serenadust, fighting an uphill battle to stay canonically (is 
> that a word?) *pure*




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  3 16:54:45 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:54:45 -0000
Subject: Harry the Seer (was: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?)
In-Reply-To: <a8dfph+b3v2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8fc4l+75gf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37374

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" <dicentra at x> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> > 
> > I can't remember any seers besides Trelawney playing a big
> > role in the HP universe (but I am not extremely observant
> > and have only read all the books twice, so far).
> > 
> What about Harry?  When he and Ron are making up disasters for 
> their homework, Harry's first prediction is that he will be in 
> danger of being burned, and the second is that he'll lose 
> something valuable. Those are the first two tasks to a T, and this 
> is before the Goblet coughed up Harry's name.  

You make an excellent point.  The burn is the dragon and when he 
loses something valuable, it's Ron.  (The thing he'll miss the most.)
Personally, I think Harry has proven to be far more prescient than 
Ron, in the first two books as well as after they started taking 
Divination.  (Perhaps part of Trelawney's hostility to him stems 
from her sensing that he has real talent?  And she's resentful that 
he doesn't appreciate or recognize his own gift but looks down on 
Divination?  Future canon will tell...) Harry also has had prescient 
dreams.

> As for predicting the third task, it's hard to say because Harry 
> first wants to say he'll come out the worse in a fight, Ron says 
> he wanted to do that one, and so Harry says he'll lose a bet. I 
> suppose deciding to grab the trophy at the same time as Cedric was 
> a kind of bet, but that's a rather broad interpretation, if you 
> ask me.  

No, he DOES lose a bet, but it's nothing to do with Cedric.  He 
loses a bet--but for someone else!  He loses a bet for Ludo Bagman!  
I'm so glad you pointed out that Harry predicted all this...I'd 
never noticed before!

Regardless of whether we want to speculate on either boy being 
a "seer," the fact that Harry and Ron continued to suspect Snape of 
being evil for a long time is completely understandable, IMO.  They 
knew Dumbledore trusted him, Hermione insisted early on in the first 
book that Snape would never hurt Harry (she later changes her mind 
when she thinks Snape is jinxing him) and even Hagrid defends Snape, 
saying he would never hurt a student.  But in spite of all this, 
Snape was horrid to them on a daily basis and at the beginning of 
the second book, looked extremely gleeful at the idea that Harry and 
Ron might be expelled.  Even if Snape had been awarded the Nobel 
Peace Prize in front of them (or the wizarding equivalent) I doubt 
they would have changed their opinion any sooner than the end of 
book four (and I got the impression they were still a little iffy 
about him).  It's very hard to get past how someone actually treats 
you and see them objectively.

--Barb

The Last Temptation of Harry Potter is complete!
Coming soon...the third part of the Psychic Serpent Trilogy...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/AuthorLinks/Barb 




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  3 17:08:34 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:08:34 -0000
Subject: That's an interesting theory
In-Reply-To: <F171gl4rhYQYx3G5aYY0001ad66@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a8fcui+bbpq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37375

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" <that1guy_hp at h...> wrote:
> The only real problem with this theory is that Ron is several 
> months younger than Harry, 

Actually, JKR gives his birthday as March 1, which would make him 
about five months older than Harry.
 
> We don't know Ginny's birthday, but she's at least six months 
> younger than Harry, but even with a late birthday, she had to have 
> been born before Harry defeated LV the first time, otherwise she'd 
> be two years behind him in school, as Harry was fifteen months old 
> when LV was defeated. 

But since we know Ron's birthday, assuming that she wasn't born 
prematurely and than Arthur and Molly waiting at least a month after 
Ron's birth to conceive again, she can't have been born much earlier 
than January 1, 1981, so she is likely to be at least five months 
younger than him, but probably more.  (Have pity on poor Molly. 
<g>)  If Hogwarts has a September 1 cutoff, as many people insist 
(to mirror the British educational system) her birthday would most 
likely be sometime in the first eight months of the year.  (I 
personally like April 1 for her birthday, because Fred and George 
would give her a really hard time if that were true.<vbeg>)

> This says nothing about Fred or George, who may well have been 
> born into troubled times as well...

We know from GoF that Fred and George were born in April of 1978, 
three-and-a-half years before the fall of Voldemort.

> do we have any canon about when LV started to raise his big stink?

Yes.  On page 13 of Philosopher's Stone, Dumbledore says, "We've had 
precious little to celebrate for eleven years."  This would imply 
that things started to get bad around 1970, although presumably, 
Voldemort would have found it necessary to begin building his power 
some time before that.  Bill and Charlie would have been small 
children (about 4 and 6) and this would have been six years before 
Percy was born and eight years before the twins.

--Barb





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Apr  3 17:53:42 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:53:42 -0000
Subject: Apology Re: FF/TBAY: The Captain returns 
In-Reply-To: <005101c1db24$8d2062a0$8b31c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a8ffj6+3n1f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37377

To those of you on digest and email, you accidentally received a 
post from me that was supposed to go privately off list. Mea 
Culpa!

Pippin




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Wed Apr  3 19:58:33 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:58:33 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names/Ginny
In-Reply-To: <004401c1da1c$d1824700$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <1017309906.3119.95364.m12@yahoogroups.com>
 <003d01c1d6a6$58495280$18fb9b3e@i7p8l9> <p05010401b8cebbd78ef0@[66.32.51.188]>
 <004401c1da1c$d1824700$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <29139632266.20020403115833@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37378


Tuesday, April 02, 2002, 12:03:03 AM, Alina wrote:

A> Now, is there any royalty called Ronald?

Reagan has an honorary knighthood, is that close enough? :)

-- 
Dave




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Apr  3 20:00:18 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:00:18 -0000
Subject: Voldemort as Christ figure; Ira, not Cole
In-Reply-To: <3CA324CC.A374B821@ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <a8fn0i+ca51@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37379

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Philip Nel <philnel at k...> wrote:
> Dear HPforGrownups listmembers,
> 
> While it's true that (as CMC points out) the phoenix is a symbol of 
resurrection, it (he) is also a character in E. Nesbit's _The Phoenix 
and the Carpet_.  His symbolic value may be as likely tied to E. 
Nesbit as to Christian symbolism.  Indeed, in E. Nesbit's novel, the 
phoenix arrives in the children's lives just after Guy Fawkes' Day, 
>leading one to speculate that Rowling's phoenix may be named Fawkes 
in homage to Nesbit's.  (As I'm sure most listserv participants know, 
>Rowling often cites E. Nesbit as a childhood favorite -- in the _O 
Magazine_ piece [Jan. 2001], for example, she specifically expresses 
>admiration for Oswald, the narrator of _The Story of the Treasure-
>Seekers_.) 

She liked Oswald, did she? My favourite was always Noel. I never 
could understand why all the others were so short with him and his, 
admittedly horrible, poetry. And I identified most with Alice.I loved 
those books, and I actually started loving Harry Potter because they 
reminded me of them. 

>So, what I'm suggesting here is, yep, the Christian allegories do 
>intersect with Rowling's series, but Fawkes the Phoenix says as much 
>about Rowling's debt to Nesbit as it does about anything else.

Yes. Rowling's children are somewhat like Nesbit's. Harry and company 
are in mortal danger and I can't remember any of Nesbit's ever being 
so. I suppose there were lots of situations where something could 
have happened. There were certainly frightening incidents like the 
time the escaped lunatic was trying to "teach" the Bastable children 
how to fly, or the time that they were locked up on the top of the 
tower and the tramp was trying to rob them, but you never felt that 
death was just around the corner. In HP, there is that feeling, and 
furthermore, Cedric has actually died. 

Yet, the Weasleys remind me very much of the Bastables. 7 children: 
Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred, George, Ron, and Ginny against 6: Dora, 
Oswald, Dickie, Alice, Noel, and H.O. Of course, Alice and Noel were 
twins, but I don't think they're at all comparable with Fred and 
George (though if F&G really sent that Valentine to Harry after all, 
there may be a parallel - thinks of Noel's awful poetry). However, 
they had the same "Devil May Care" attitude that the Weasleys have 
except for Dora who was very Percy-like in her scoldings. Dickie and 
Oswald were always playing practical jokes on people. In the first 
book, they were very "poor": in an turn of the century English 
literature fashion (two servants). They were a wonderful family. They 
played together, and fought, and made up continually, though they 
lacked a Mrs. Weasley (their mother was dead), and their father never 
seemed to be around. Albert's uncle, though, reminds me of Dumbledore.

Eileen




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Wed Apr  3 20:15:32 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:15:32 -0800
Subject: Voldy's mum
In-Reply-To: <004401c1da1c$d1824700$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <1017309906.3119.95364.m12@yahoogroups.com>
 <003d01c1d6a6$58495280$18fb9b3e@i7p8l9> <p05010401b8cebbd78ef0@[66.32.51.188]>
 <004401c1da1c$d1824700$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <47140651533.20020403121532@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37380

Is there anyone besides me who wants to know more about this elusive
figure who died in childbirth but apparently held out long enough to
name her son after the bum who deserted her?

We keep trying to draw Ginny-Lily parallels, but is it possible that
the deceased person who is most Ginny-like is actually Mrs. Riddle?
It seems to me like she likely got taken advantage of and manipulated
by Tom Riddle senior much as TR Jr. did Ginny.  And she must have been
still in a state of being duped when she bestowed the b--t--d's name
on her son.  (I can just hear her on her deathbed moaning, "I still
love him!")  And was she a Slytherin?  (I say, "Not necessarily.")
And why was Tom raised in a Muggle orphanage?  Is it at all possible
that Mrs. R was "living as a Muggle" (perhaps to evade Grindelwald)
much as we're now being told James and Lily were?

And will we ever get any clues as to how Tom got so evil so fast?
He seems to have left Annakin Skywalker in the dust in the "get
evil at an early age" race.  And would mum be proud of what her son
has become or (as I'm curently imagining) appalled?

-- 
Dave




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Apr  3 20:32:48 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:32:48 -0000
Subject: Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter
In-Reply-To: <20020326065140.64240.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a8fotg+3rcp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37381

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Melanie Brackney <ilovbrian_99 at y...> wrote:

> I agree with what you are saying about Pettigrew and Judan Iscariot 
but I have to wonder why you don't see Draco Malfoy as being 
redeemed?  

Oh, I see it all right. I just don't like it. I don't find Draco a 
very interesting character, and wish Rowling wouldn't waste much more 
space on him. I was sick in bed all yesterday, and after my brothers 
went to school, I dragged myself to the next bedroom where another 
sick brother was listening to Jim Dale reading Prisoner of Azkaban. 
We spent the whole day lying on the bed and drifting in and out of 
HP, while kicking back ginger ale and feeling terrible. However, we 
began to make comments on Draco's comebacks. "That was a really bad 
one. Does he think he's funny?" And, as I had always suspected, Draco 
came off badly. He's plain not funny, most of the time. Sure, he gets 
a few good lines insulting Hagrid, but against Ron?

If I never read another scene like this again, it'll be too soon.

Draco: "YEAH! You're so poor you probably don't know what a house is."

The kid is like a broken record machine. No wit. No inventiveness. He 
didn't even invent the line in the beginning, I would guess, judging 
by its important place in Lucius Malfoy's repartory. Half of Draco's 
conversation seems to consist of variations on that theme. 

>I personally find Draco to be a very tragic character in HP, why?  I 
feel sorry for the guy.  I mean it's obvious that his father is a 
horrible man who in many ways is abusing his son, or it's definitely 
>implied as such.

I don't think it's implied at all. If you go through the archives, 
you can find lots on this topic. Just type in draco and abuse, but I 
think all the evidence points to the opposite. 

Eileen




From Bugeater93 at aol.com  Wed Apr  3 20:37:18 2002
From: Bugeater93 at aol.com (Bugeater93 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:37:18 EST
Subject: Seers
Message-ID: <148.c39c658.29dcc1fe@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37382

>Dicentra continued:
>As for predicting the third task, it's hard to say because Harry first
>wants to say he'll come out the worse in a fight, Ron says he wanted
>to do that one, and so Harry says he'll lose a bet. I suppose deciding
>to grab the trophy at the same time as Cedric was a kind of bet, but
>that's a rather broad interpretation, if you ask me.  


Here's another way that I believe most of you have overlooked:  Harry and 
Cedric both fight the giant spider at the end of the third task and Harry 
comes out with his leg seriously injured and Cedric wasn't hurt...though the 
spider did die...but maybe that's what the "come out worst in a fight" meant? 
 That is...if the prediction was supposed to be for Harry instead of Ron.

As for the back-stabbing one...what about Cedric Diggory?  Cedric *did* get 
Cho instead of Harry getting her as a date for the Yule Ball.  Maybe?

~Michelle


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Apr  3 20:50:33 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:50:33 -0000
Subject: Arthur Weasley, With Imperius Curse (WAS: What's In A Name?)
In-Reply-To: <a7m0ph+q443@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8fpup+makf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37383

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <skelkins at a...> wrote:

> Aw, come on.  Just a nibble?  Can't I get anyone to swallow one of 
> these?  They may be only half-baked, but I did make them myself, 
and 
> with real canon!

I bought into Arthur Weasley with Imperius a long time ago, fyi, last 
time you brought it up. 

> Here.  I'll show you.
> 
> 
> Okay.  Presumably, there were indeed at least a *few* wizards who 
> really were placed under the Imperius Curse against their will 
during
> Voldemort's first rise, rather than just claiming that they had been
> to escape punishment for their crimes.  

Yes, and we NEED to see them. Just like we need to see that bunch who 
just cracked. And just as Bagman needs to be not totally evil (glares 
at tough-yet-soft Cindy) because we need someone who was actually 
tricked. Of course, JKR doesn't seem to agree that this is necessary, 
but who is she to interfere with my whimsies?

> Further speculations about missing Weasley children, Arthur's 
> particular demeanor when telling the children about the 
significance 
> of the Dark Mark at the end of Chapter 9 of GoF, Bill's 
contributions 
> to that particular conversation, literary parallels between Percy 
> Weasley and Barty Crouch, and how any of that might intersect with 
> the series' thematic emphasis on damaged families, secrets, the 
> effects of the past upon the present, and father-son relationships, 
I 
> will leave to the cruel and ruthlessly bloody minds of my fellow 
> FEATHERBOAS.

Percy-Crouch Jr.? I'm not that cruel. But it is interesting that 
Percy choose Crouch Sr. to look up to as almost a father figure, 
something Crouch Jr. never dreamed of doing. 

Now, Chapter 9. 

"Did you get them, Dad?" said Bill sharply. "The person who conjured 
the Mark?"

which indicates that Bill knows what the Mark is. It's Ron who asks 
all the questions in the net bit, and I think it's correct to assume 
that Percy and Charlie aren't in the dark.

Bill, though, is a fountain of information on the subject. After all, 
he was at Hogwarts back in those days.

Now, how about this line.

"The terror it inspired ... you have no idea, you're too young. Just 
picture coming home, and finding the Dark Mark hovering over your 
house, and knowing what you're about to find inside ..." Mr. Weasley 
winced. 'Everyone's worst fear ... the very worst ..."

"There was silence for a moment."

Missing Weasley children anyone? 

And, if they do exist, I don't think the younger children know. It's 
not a healthy response to death but people do it. I remember reading 
a biography of G.K. Chesterton's... When he and his brother Cecil 
were very young, their sister died of some childhood sickness, and in 
grieving their father took down all her pictures, refused to have her 
name mentioned in the house, and wouldn't tolerate any mention of 
sickness or death. Chesterton said that he remembered her only 
slightly, and as a child had a vague idea that she fell off a horse 
and was killed. 

Now, how if Percy has a vague idea, and the others are in the 
darkness?

Eileen




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr  3 20:58:55 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:58:55 -0000
Subject: Seers
In-Reply-To: <148.c39c658.29dcc1fe@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a8fqef+adu0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37384

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Bugeater93 at a... wrote:

> As for the back-stabbing one...what about Cedric Diggory?  Cedric
*did* get 
> Cho instead of Harry getting her as a date for the Yule Ball. 
Maybe?

I don't see how that qualifies as "back-stabbing by a friend."  Cedric
wasn't Harry's friend -- they were casual acquaintances at best.  And
nothing Cedric did constituted back-stabbing; he simply asked Cho to
the Ball before Harry did.  He didn't even know that Harry was
interested in Cho.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From dicentra at xmission.com  Wed Apr  3 21:34:18 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 21:34:18 -0000
Subject: Harry the Seer (was: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?)
In-Reply-To: <a8fc4l+75gf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8fsgq+574h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37385

> > > Susanne:
> > > I can't remember any seers besides Trelawney playing a big
> > > role in the HP universe (but I am not extremely observant
> > > and have only read all the books twice, so far).

> > > Dicentra:
> > What about Harry?  When he and Ron are making up disasters for 
> > their homework, Harry's first prediction is that he will be in 
> > danger of being burned, and the second is that he'll lose 
> > something valuable. Those are the first two tasks to a T, and this 
> > is before the Goblet coughed up Harry's name. 
  
> Barb:
> You make an excellent point.  The burn is the dragon and when he 
> loses something valuable, it's Ron.  (The thing he'll miss the most.)
> Personally, I think Harry has proven to be far more prescient than 
> Ron, in the first two books as well as after they started taking 
> Divination.  
> 
Dicentra:
> > As for predicting the third task, it's hard to say because Harry 
> > first wants to say he'll come out the worse in a fight, Ron says 
> > he wanted to do that one, and so Harry says he'll lose a bet. I 
> > suppose deciding to grab the trophy at the same time as Cedric was 
> > a kind of bet, but that's a rather broad interpretation, if you 
> > ask me. 

Barb:> 
> No, he DOES lose a bet, but it's nothing to do with Cedric.  He 
> loses a bet--but for someone else!  He loses a bet for Ludo Bagman!  
> I'm so glad you pointed out that Harry predicted all this...I'd 
> never noticed before!

> Dicentra again:
Ok, here's something to choke on. Go to the next page, where Harry
finishes up his homework. The last thing he makes up is to predict his
own death by decapitation. It's a funny line in the context of the
scene (and it's undoubtedly funny to Harry), but given that the other
things mentioned came true, what are we to think about the
decapitation? Is that how Harry will die in the end?  Is it how he
will NEARLY die in the end? (Of course, Pettigrew has to take his
place because of the life-debt. Or at least that's the theory.) He
certainly didn't escape decapitation at the end of GoF.

--Dicentra, who wishes she hadn't noticed it





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Apr  3 21:39:38 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 21:39:38 -0000
Subject: Voldy's mum
In-Reply-To: <47140651533.20020403121532@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a8fsqq+7ctc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37386

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at m...> 
wrote:
him!")  And was she a Slytherin?  (I say, "Not necessarily.")
> And why was Tom raised in a Muggle orphanage?  Is it at all 
possible that Mrs. R was "living as a Muggle" (perhaps to evade 
Grindelwald) much as we're now being told James and Lily 
were?

It's possible that Mrs. R was disinherited by her wizarding 
relatives. More likely she ran away and the Ministry lost track of 
her. Elopement, in fact, is mentioned as a possible reason that 
the Ministry can't find Bertha Jorkins. Perhaps she was not a 
British witch but a foreign one, whom Tom Sr. encountered on 
the Grand Tour. In that case, the Ministry might not know about 
her at all. 

She can't have had much family, or Tom would not be the only 
remaining descendant. It would seem that she had been living 
as a Muggle, or her husband would have found out sooner that 
she was a witch.

> 
> And will we ever get any clues as to how Tom got so evil so 
fast?

It's been theorized that Diary!Tom was a projection of its author's 
ideal self, and so was more powerful and more wicked than the 
original. However....

Tom experienced at least two drastic dislocations in his life: 
losing his mother and finding out that he was a wizard. There 
may have been others. Infants who were placed in orphanages 
in those days were given to foster mothers with whom they 
remained for several years, perhaps until age five or six. Then 
they were taken back to the orphanage. The foster mothers were 
allowed to visit sometimes but many did not. Many orphans have 
reported how traumatic this separation was. Tom would have 
experienced another dislocation on leaving Hogwarts (he seems 
to have reacted to this one by murdering his father and 
grandparents.)

Life in the orphanages was very regimented. Boys were 
generally prepared for a life in the military. Tom would have 
gotten an early grounding in the philosophy of Empire, along with 
being trained to march and drill.

He might have arrived at Hogwarts with dreams of conquest 
already planted in his head, along with the sort of  anger and 
helplessness that urges people to acts of collective madness, 
and a stunted ability to love. 


Pippin




From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  3 21:40:08 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 21:40:08 -0000
Subject: Seers
In-Reply-To: <148.c39c658.29dcc1fe@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a8fsro+26hc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37387

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Bugeater93 at a... wrote:

> As for the back-stabbing one...what about Cedric Diggory?  Cedric 
*did* get 
> Cho instead of Harry getting her as a date for the Yule Ball.  
Maybe?


Er, Cedric asked her first. And it's not like Harry and Cho were 
hanging out together or anything like that. It's a sure thing that 
Harry was infatuated with her, but he sure kept that secret to 
himself, especially from Cho.

Zoe Hooch




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 02:56:47 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 02:56:47 -0000
Subject: Voldy's mum
In-Reply-To: <47140651533.20020403121532@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a8gfdf+5vhp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37388

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at m...> wrote:
> Is there anyone besides me who wants to know more about this 
elusive
> figure who died in childbirth but apparently held out long enough 
to
> name her son after the bum who deserted her?
> 
> We keep trying to draw Ginny-Lily parallels, but is it possible 
> that the deceased person who is most Ginny-like is actually Mrs. 
> Riddle? It seems to me like she likely got taken advantage of and 
> manipulated by Tom Riddle senior much as TR Jr. did Ginny.  

The only real similarities between Ginny Weasley and Lily Evans are 
a) hair color; b) being in Gryffindor; and c) having a thing for 
dark-haired boys (named Potter, in a couple of cases).  Ginny has 
grown up in a large and loving wizarding family, whereas Lily Evans 
didn't find out she was a witch until she received her Hogwarts 
letter, at which time the animosities between her and Petunia seemed 
to have increased exponentially (I don't believe Petunia resented 
her solely for being a witch--I'm guessing she already didn't get on 
with Lily before that).

Similarities between Ginny and Voldemort's mother include: coming 
from old wizarding families (it is through his mother that Tom M. 
Riddle is descended from Salazar Slytherin); and falling under 
the "spell" of a Riddle.  That's it.  We just don't know enough 
about Tom's mum to say much about her.

> And she must have been still in a state of being duped when she 
> bestowed the b--t--d's name on her son.  (I can just hear her on 
> her deathbed moaning, "I still love him!")  

You've obviously never given birth. <g>  Having just had a baby and 
(presumably) losing enough blood to die (or possibly having an 
infection), she was probably out cold.  No woman proclaims much love 
for the man who got her pregnant while she's giving birth.  Trust 
me.  (My husband is lucky I didn't break his hand when I was 
squeezing it during contractions.)

> And was she a Slytherin?  (I say, "Not necessarily.")

As the last remaining heir to Slytherin, I have no doubt this is the 
house she was in.  Where else?  After all, once she had set her 
sights on Tom Riddle, even though he was a Muggle, she would 
probably have had absolutely no compunctions about using magic to 
get him.  So even though I include her being under a 
Riddle's "spell" in the above list, I would guess it was actually 
the other way around.  After all, she kept from him that she was a 
witch until after they were married (of course, so did Seamus 
Finnigan's mother--perhaps this is fairly common in the wizarding 
world with these cross-cultural matches).  She wasn't exactly being 
honest and above board.  Just because she's female doesn't mean she 
wasn't Slytherin's heir(ess) in every sense of the word.  The only 
non-Slytherin thing about her seems to have been falling for a 
Muggle, and we can't always choose what our hearts will do.  
(Although I'm willing to guess that it was a matter of having 
a "thing" that she wanted--the Riddles were wealthy, after all.)

> And why was Tom raised in a Muggle orphanage?  Is it at all 
> possible that Mrs. R was "living as a Muggle" (perhaps to evade 
> Grindelwald) much as we're now being told James and Lily were?

Back to the pregnancy/labor thing.  Plenty of times women go into 
labor when and where they least expect it.  She may have been in a 
Muggle town, walking down a street, when her water broke (there's no 
turning back when this happens--it's more definitive than merely 
having contractions, which may be false labor).  One probably 
shouldn't Apparate while in labor, and it's also possible that a 
witch isn't able to focus adequately to do any other kind of magic 
when in this condition, either.  Thus, she could have been taken off 
to the nearest hospital or birthing ward (this was the late 
twenties, so she probably would have been taken to a "lying-in" 
hospital, as they were called in the states at the time--I don't 
know what they were called in England).  She may have been put under 
using ether after informing the matron of the name(s) she preferred 
for girl and boy babies.  It's possible that she was never conscious 
to see her child.  Thus, all the hospital staff would know after she 
died in childbirth was the name she wanted for the child.  Then the 
baby would have been shipped off to the nearest orphanage with no 
one the wiser about the baby being a wizard and the only remaining 
Heir of Slytherin.  It's possible that they might have tried to find 
her family or even tried to contact the Riddle family, assuming that 
she named the child that for a very good reason, but the Riddles may 
have disavowed any knowledge of her or her child.
 
> And will we ever get any clues as to how Tom got so evil so fast?
> He seems to have left Annakin Skywalker in the dust in the "get
> evil at an early age" race.  And would mum be proud of what her son
> has become or (as I'm curently imagining) appalled?

Oh, Anakin had an idyllic childhood, judging from Episode I.  Tom 
grew up in an orphanage from about 1927 to 1938, which covered large 
parts of the Depression.  This does not sound like fun.  I am 
reminded of the character of Homer Wells in "The Cider House Rules" 
who managed to behave badly enough every time his orphanage tried to 
place him with a family that he was repeatedly returned to the 
orphanage.  I could imagine Tom Riddle doing the same thing if he 
was carted off to live with people like, say, the Dursleys.  If they 
made him do anything he didn't like, he probably would have reacted 
strongly and performed some inadvertant magic.  Tom Riddle would 
likely have been returned to the orphanage more times than any other 
child.  You think that kind of rejection (if that's what happened) 
wouldn't have an effect on your personality?

--Barb





From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 03:22:30 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 03:22:30 -0000
Subject: Do all wizards go to school?
Message-ID: <a8ggtm+aon8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37389

I have wondered about the witches and wizards who don't go to 
Hogwarts, such as Stan Shunpike or Ernie Prang on the Wizard bus. 
There have to be a number of them who've never set foot in a wizard 
school. I wonder how they get their training? Is there a parallel 
track for non-academic wizards?

Just curious,
Zoe Hooch




From jlile at cet.com  Thu Apr  4 03:44:55 2002
From: jlile at cet.com (Janelle Lile)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 19:44:55 -0800
Subject: Who is the seer? musical chairs
In-Reply-To: <a8fc4l+75gf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000301c1db8b$15b7f900$8f41fea9@janelle2>

No: HPFGUIDX 37390

blpurdom wrote:
Personally, I think Harry has proven to be far more prescient than
Ron, in the first two books as well as after they started taking
Divination.  (Perhaps part of Trelawney's hostility to him stems
from her sensing that he has real talent?  And she's resentful that
he doesn't appreciate or recognize his own gift but looks down on
Divination?  Future canon will tell...) Harry also has had prescient
dreams.

I write:
My favorite is-Harry-seeing-the-future moment is PoA 16, the Divination
final.

"'Are you sure?'  Professor Trelawney urged him.  'Are you quite sure, dear?
You don't see it writhing on the ground, perhaps, and a shadowy figure
raising an axe behind it?'
'No!' said Harry, starting to feel slightly sick...'It looks fine,
it's--flying away...'"

Which, as you and I know, is basically what happens.

I've had a shadow of an idea that Trelawney's tower room is the room with
unexplored potential, not the chamber-pot room (delightful as chamber-pots
undoubtedly are).  I'm not sure where that leaves Harry's dreams, though.
And the interview quote at
http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript2.shtml is that the
room is mentioned in book 4.  If that means book 4 but also book 3 then it
works, but if she means only book 4, well, never mind.

Also, is it possible that all this seeing business is terribly unpleasant
for the seer?  Harry feels sick and wants to leave in the above passage.

Janelle  (feeling brave today, apparently)

"Angela stamped her foot.  An unladylike action, no doubt, but how much
better than kicking an uncle with it, as her lower nature prompted."
P.G. Wodehouse





From elfundeb at aol.com  Thu Apr  4 05:21:56 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:21:56 EST
Subject: Harry the Seer (was: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?)
Message-ID: <91.1afc1ca2.29dd3cf4@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37391

In a message dated 4/3/2002 4:35:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
dicentra at xmission.com writes:

> > > > Dicentra:
> > > What about Harry?  When he and Ron are making up disasters for 
> > > their homework, Harry's first prediction is that he will be in 
> > > danger of being burned, and the second is that he'll lose 
> > > something valuable. Those are the first two tasks to a T, and this 
> > > is before the Goblet coughed up Harry's name. 

As I read this passage, Harry mentions losing something valuable in response 
to Ron's hesitation about his Tuesday prediction, and Ron writes it down.  So 
I don't think that's Harry's prediction for himself.

> 
> > > As for predicting the third task, it's hard to say because Harry 
> > > first wants to say he'll come out the worse in a fight, Ron says 
> > > he wanted to do that one, and so Harry says he'll lose a bet. I 
> > > suppose deciding to grab the trophy at the same time as Cedric was 
> > > a kind of bet, but that's a rather broad interpretation, if you 
> > > ask me. 
> 
> Barb:> 
> > No, he DOES lose a bet, but it's nothing to do with Cedric.  He 
> > loses a bet--but for someone else!  He loses a bet for Ludo Bagman!  
> 
> > Dicentra again:
> Ok, here's something to choke on. Go to the next page, where Harry
> finishes up his homework. The last thing he makes up is to predict his
> own death by decapitation. It's a funny line in the context of the
> scene (and it's undoubtedly funny to Harry), but given that the other
> things mentioned came true, what are we to think about the
> decapitation? Is that how Harry will die in the end?  Is it how he
> will NEARLY die in the end? (Of course, Pettigrew has to take his
> place because of the life-debt. Or at least that's the theory.) He
> certainly didn't escape decapitation at the end of GoF.
> 
My response:

I believe there may be a problem in acclaiming Harry (or Ron) as a seer based 
on predictions they made while faking their divination homework.  Reading 
Trelawney's assignment carefully, she asks for predictions for the next 
month.  And Harry and Ron adhere to this.  For example, Harry writes that "on 
Monday, I will be in danger of -- er -- burns."  But the First Task did not 
happen until November - two months later, and it took place on a Tuesday.  
The other events also did not happen within the timeframe covered by 
Trelawney's assignment.  In my view, these predictions are as accurate as 
Trelawney's prediction that the thing Lavender was dreading would happen on 
the 16th of October.  Something happened on the the 16th of October (Lavender 
was informed that Binky had died) but she admitted she wasn't dreading it.  
Of course, the degree to which their intentionally made-up predictions did 
come true is wonderfully ironic, and I bet JKR had great fun with this 
passage, even if she didn't know how we would dissect it.

If I were to judge whether any HP character was a "true" seer, I would limit 
my analysis to real attempts to predict the future, and prescient dreams and 
trances, and ignore offhand comments and deliberate fabrication like the 
astrology predictions.  IIRC, this leaves us with the teacup readings (Ron's 
correctly predicted Harry's Triwizard winnings; Harry's prediction of 
suffering, then happiness for Ron requires more time to tell), Harry's final 
exam (a correct prediction of Buckbeak's escape), Trelawney's trance (also 
correct).  I'm having trouble now remembering the extent to which Harry's 
dreams predict rather than report on current events, but I recall thinking 
how prescient his dreams were when reading the books.  Based on these 
episodes only, I think all three (Harry, Ron and Trelawney) have potential, 
though the evidence is thin and I'm suspicious that looking up symbols in a 
book, as Harry and Ron did with their teacup predictions, qualifies anyone as 
a seer, regardless of how correct the predictions are.  

So maybe Harry won't be decapitated after all.

Debbie, who is concerned that she remembers seemingly insignificant HP 
details, like the fact that the First Task took place on a Tuesday, without 
consulting the books


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From alina at distantplace.net  Wed Apr  3 23:23:14 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 18:23:14 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter
References: <a8fotg+3rcp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c1db66$88241de0$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37392

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: lucky_kari 

  >I personally find Draco to be a very tragic character in HP, why?  I 
  feel sorry for the guy.  I mean it's obvious that his father is a 
  horrible man who in many ways is abusing his son, or it's definitely 
  >implied as such.

  I don't think it's implied at all. If you go through the archives, 
  you can find lots on this topic. Just type in draco and abuse, but I 
  think all the evidence points to the opposite. 

I agree, I am really surprised at how many people seem to think that Draco is an abused child who's only mean to people either because his father wants him to be or because he's taking his abuse out on other people. I doubt Lucius Malfoy is "baseball in the park" type of father, but really he doesn't seem like the type of man to hit his son either. More like the father who's never there and Draco is trying to get his dad to notice him. Besides, the boy has got a doting mother, just remember all the sweets she sent him and the fact that she wanted him to go to Hogwarts just to keep him closer to home. 

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From twelveeyes at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  4 00:32:01 2002
From: twelveeyes at hotmail.com (evillestofthemall_13)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 00:32:01 -0000
Subject: About names - 7th children
In-Reply-To: <200204031055.g33AtEc06572@mail23.bigmailbox.com>
Message-ID: <a8g6u1+43o0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37393

Erm...first of all, hello. I am a newbie. My name is Jo, some may 
know me as twelveeyes...::hides:: Er, I do believe there is some 
dislike directed towards me for being a fangirl, but I'm harmless. I 
just...bounce a lot. Right. Well, I don't have any particular ships 
and don't favour any particular character...I just like the books on 
the whole.

Weaver: --Nicknames don't always follow logically from the first 
name -- Bill for William, Dick for Richard etc.  For Ginny, how 
about Jennifer?  Or Janelle, or Janine?  Admittedly not particularly 
English names (like the boys' names). Jean? Jane?  I think it's 
quite possible that Ginny does fit into that suggested system.

I don't know whether it's just me, but I thought that the Bill for 
William nickname was rather American. I'm probably wrong. :) For 
Ginny:  Gina, Genevieve (form of Guinevere), Janet (derived from 
Jane), and June. Although they don't really fit with the rest of the 
naming pattern, apart from Genevieve > Guinevere, which then goes to 
the Arthurian legends. Speaking of which, Arthur didn't happen to 
have knights called William, Charles, Percival, Frederick, George, 
and Ronald, did he? Unfortunately I haven't quite gotten up to that 
in history yet...

> >And what about girls? Is it the same for the 7th daughter of
> >a 7th daughter/son?
> --Have you ever read Terry Pratchett's *Equal Rites*, where the 
masculine power of wizardry is passed to the seventh child of a 
seventh son, who  - after recieving the power - turns out to be a 
girl?  Proposes an interesting idea, anyway, and as a die-hard TP 
fan, I love advising people to read him :-p

I have read that (and it is good), but then there's that bit of 
theory that there was another male child in there before Ron, 
therefore making Ron the seventh son. And even though I adore 
Pratchett, wouldn't it make more sense if it was a seventh daughter 
of a seventh daughter? And would she have to have six sisters before 
her to be the seventh daughter?

Jo, having read the Humungous Bigfile and refrained from using 
asterisks as markers for actions...who will go now and leave you all 
in peace.






From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Thu Apr  4 01:57:48 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 01:57:48 -0000
Subject: Seers, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?
In-Reply-To: <003201c1dac3$cd6041c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a8gbus+2sqi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37394

Laura wrote:

"This is where the Ron-is-a-seer theory falls apart -- nowhere (in 
GoF anyway)does Ron come off worse in a fight -- I mean, in 
Harry and Ron's fight, Harrydefinitely seems to be coming off 
worse. *can't think of any other Ron-related fights in GoF* And 
there *are* a couple of ways to look at Harry "coming off
worse in a fight" that make it plausible. "

Ah, but what about his argument with Hermione after the ball?  
Ron goes off in a huff, saying that she just didn't get it, but Harry 
thought that Hermione "got it" a lot better than Ron might even 
understand, or something along those lines.

I'd think that if he is a Seer, that maybe a person needs to get 
through adolescence before they can trust their visions, I think 
that with the horemones all awhack and all sorts of new and 
unusual senses to interpret, that anyone's vision might be a little 
cloudy.

Rita






From conquistas2000 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 02:17:19 2002
From: conquistas2000 at yahoo.com (conquistas2000)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 02:17:19 -0000
Subject: Harry the Seer (was: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?)
In-Reply-To: <a8fsgq+574h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8gd3f+51mk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37395

> Dicentra again:
> Ok, here's something to choke on. Go to the next page, where Harry
> finishes up his homework. The last thing he makes up is to predict his
> own death by decapitation. It's a funny line in the context of the
> scene (and it's undoubtedly funny to Harry), but given that the other
> things mentioned came true, what are we to think about the
> decapitation? Is that how Harry will die in the end?  Is it how he
> will NEARLY die in the end? (Of course, Pettigrew has to take his
> place because of the life-debt. Or at least that's the theory.) He
> certainly didn't escape decapitation at the end of GoF.
> 
> --Dicentra, who wishes she hadn't noticed it

Umm, remember Harry predicting losing a bet.  While it was Bagman who
lost the bet, but on Harry.  So Death by decapitation, perhaps Nearly
Headless Nick (Dead and *almost* decapitated) will somehow help Harry
out in the end.  I mean Harry getting decapitated in the end it too
literal of a prediction, and the predictions in the Potterverse, you
tend to need to apply a more general intepretation of it.

-Conquistas, who have no idea what he's saying.





From lucy at luphen.co.uk  Thu Apr  4 06:49:25 2002
From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 07:49:25 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do all wizards go to school?
References: <a8ggtm+aon8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01b001c1dba4$dbedd180$5caf1e3e@stephen>

No: HPFGUIDX 37396

zoe said:

I have wondered about the witches and wizards who don't go to 
Hogwarts, such as Stan Shunpike or Ernie Prang on the Wizard bus. 
There have to be a number of them who've never set foot in a wizard 
school. I wonder how they get their training? Is there a parallel 
track for non-academic wizards?

Just curious,
Zoe Hooch


Where did you get the impression that they didn't go to wizard school though? I got the impression that Ernie is quite old, and so presumably went to school ages ago. Stan is about 18 years old (PoA says he looks a few years older than Harry) and therefore this is his first job after leaving Hogwarts, as he didn't get enough NEWTs to go to the MoM or wherever the brightest wizards go!

That's my guess anyway!

Lucy the Drifty

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Apr  4 07:13:51 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 07:13:51 -0000
Subject: Snape:  Vampire vs. Dementor
In-Reply-To: <D6F39B5C-4419-11D6-8801-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a8gufg+5ci2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37397

Eloise asked:

> Can I ask this question again? PLEASE will someone explain to me 
>about Dementors and hydrophobia?

Porphyria replied:

> You might already realize this, but this was something Cindy came 
up 
> with, round about post #33862. I shall defer any further 
explanation to 
> her.

Well, what do we have here?  A new crop of potential recruits to the 
idea that Snape is part-dementor?  Perhaps a few folks are feeling a 
deep sense of dissatisfaction with the idea that Snape is a vampire 
and are looking for something a bit more . . . distinctive?

I know exactly how you feel.  Snape-As-Vampire is so . . . so . . . 
so *yesterday*!  It's been foreshadowed half to death already.  
Opinion polls have even been taken on whether people think Snape is a 
vampire.  That proves that Snape-As-Vampire is becoming downright 
conventional, practically *corporate*.  No, Snape-As-Vampire simply 
won't do.

Ah, but Snape-As-Part-Dementor.  Now *that* is supported by canon and 
is so improbable that it is exactly the sort of thing JKR would try 
to pull.  But we'll be ready for her this time, won't we?  We have a 
nifty acronym (SLAPDASH -- Snape's Life As Part-Dementor: A Sorrowful 
History), and at this point, the only things we really need are, uh, 
actual members.  In fact, I don't think we can technically say "we" 
because SLAPDASH is pretty much just me, I suppose. But that's about 
to change!

Where's the canon, you ask?  Oh, there's plenty of canon to think 
Snape is far from normal.  Even among wizards, Snape is highly 
unusual.  He has greasy hair, a silky voice, sallow skin, and a mean 
temperament. He occupies a dungeon, has a severe personality, and 
prowls the castle, doesn't spend a lot of time outside in the sun, 
and has associated with evil DEs.  He is described as gliding, gives 
Neville the shakes and is Neville's deepest fear. He seems to delight 
in causing strong emotional responses in others (such as when he 
stopped Harry from finding Dumbledore in GoF).  

But there is that one rather awkward question hanging out there:  How 
could a wizard have, um, relations with a sightless, soul-sucking, 
slimy-handed dementor to produce Snape, The Half-Dementor? 

No problem.  No problem at all.  Snape isn't a direct descendant of a 
dementor via marriage. Instead, Snape's mother was pregnant with him 
when she was attacked by a dementor.  She was unable to ward off the 
dementor, and the dementor sucked out her soul, leaving her alive and 
still gestating our little Severus.  She continued to exist and Snape 
was born. Because his mother was relieved of her soul while he was in 
utero, Severus is part-dementor and has many of the characteristics 
of a dementor, but not to the same degree as a real dementor (cold, 
gliding, draining happiness from the air around them, infesting the 
darkest places).

Now, the hydrophobia idea isn't essential to the Snape-As-Part-
Dementor theory.  The idea is that Snape can't immerse himself in 
water because of his half-dementor problem.  Note that there is a 
stone gargoyle fountain in Snape's classroom, but we never see Snape 
touch water. Perhaps he can tolerate enough water to wipe his skin 
clean, but taking a shower to wash his hair would finish him. As I 
said, you can take or leave the hydrophobia part.  I rather like it 
though because, well, any decent Snape theory has to have *some* take 
on his grooming problem, doesn't it?  

Anyway, Half-Dementor Snape shares an affinity with dementors, but he 
resents them for what they did to his poor mother. I like to think 
that Severus lost a bit of his soul in the attack as well. 
Dumbledore, who apparently is willing to hire pretty much anyone, 
knows that Snape is part-dementor, but hires him anyway.  

This puts a new spin on Moody's conversation with Dumbledore in the 
Karkaroff Pensieve scene.  Moody makes a remark about giving 
Karkaroff back to the dementors, and IIRC, Dumbledore makes a noise 
of dissent.  It is Moody who says Dumbledore doesn't like dementors.  
Perhaps Dumbledore is being a bit evasive there -- he doesn't like 
dementors generally, but he has come to trust Snape despite his half-
dementor status.  

In fact, Half-Dementor Snape might even help explain why Snape became 
a DE.  If we are to believe Dumbledore at the end of GoF, the 
dementors are aligned with Voldemort.  If that is so, perhaps Snape 
was just following his dementor instincts when he became a DE.  He 
was powerless to resist the temptation to become a DE, the poor guy.  

Anyway, SLAPDASH also neatly explains why Snape did not hand Black to 
the dementors in PoA when Snape had the chance. Deep down, Snape could
not be directly responsible for allowing dementors to do what they 
did to his mother and suck out Black's soul, despite how much he 
hates Black.

You want *more* canon?  Boy, this is a tough crowd.  Well, OK.  One 
troubling thing about GoF is that the dementor sucks out Crouch Jr.'s 
soul, and Snape does not conjure a patronus to prevent this.  Snape 
seems to have been quite talented at Dark Arts, having arrived at 
Hogwarts knowing quite a number of curses.  Yet Snape doesn't ward 
off the dementor, even though Snape should appreciate the importance 
of keeping Crouch Jr. alive to give testimony.  And why is that?  
Because Snape *can't* conjure a patronus because he's half-dementor; 
it would finish him for sure.  

So, you see, Snape-As-Part-Dementor is unassailable.  It's 
canonical.  It's rather Bangy.  It's, uh, tremendously unpopular.  
What's not to like?  :-)

Cindy 





From porphyria at mindspring.com  Thu Apr  4 11:00:44 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 03:00:44 -0800
Subject: On following rules
Message-ID: <3637CC69-47BB-11D6-B637-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37398

I've been intrigued by the recent Percy discussions and the question of 
whether or not he will get himself into trouble on account of his 
propensity for following rules. I feel I have little insight into 
character types like Percy, and all I can say with certainty on the 
topic is that JKR is definitely setting her readers up to wonder about 
him, and worry about just how bad a time he will have of things in 
future books. I'm tempted to say he'll turn out to be a red herring (*I* 
thought he was the villain in CoS, so what do I know?), but I'm also 
sure things will get very complicated for him before we find that out 
for sure who's side he's finally on.

But what this really got me thinking about is the whole question of 
following rules as it's presented in the series. Characters as otherwise 
different in personality as Hermione, Snape and Percy all have (or claim 
to have) a tendency to stick to rules to the point where it becomes a 
fault. And it nearly is always a fault, isn't it? In Percy's case, his 
being a stickler for rules is seen as a lack of common sense, a 
propensity for focusing on petty details rather then the whole picture, 
as with the cauldron bottoms. It's also manifested in a failure to 
understand people and situations; he  blames his father's lack of proper 
procedure for Rita Skeeter's article attacking him and he idolizes 
Crouch Sr. for being a stickler himself. This combination of qualities 
is very worrying and does suggest he'll be easily manipulated if he 
doesn't wisen up in time.

Now Hermione goes back and forth between being portrayed as shrill when 
she insists upon rules and blithely breaking them herself. The text 
notes with audible relief the point in PS/SS where "Hermione had become 
a bit more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had saved 
her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for it." But she's 
back to being a nuisance in CoS when she's the only Gryffindor (besides 
Percy) who's furious at Harry and Ron after the Anglia incident. Of 
course then she goes on to mastermind the polyjuice plot -- the point is 
that her rule-breaking usually shows her in more pleasant light.

But there are times when both characters are shown to have very 
protective instincts at work in their choices. A good example in Percy's 
case is when he lays down the law when the twins are teasing Ginny in 
Cos -- he's genuinely worried about her, as she herself notes in her 
diary. And the point in GoF where Percy loses his stuffy composure and 
runs into the lake after Ron is more evidence that he has a strong 
protective streak at heart. In Hermione's case, she evolves somewhat 
from preferring rules for their own sake or the sake of her house's 
reputation, to mostly insisting on rules when there is genuine danger. 
For instance, her alerting McGonagall to her suspicion of Harry's 
Nimbus, while outraging Harry, was truly prudent, and her policing of 
the Time-Turner in PoA was again in the interest of not doing 
considerable damage with it.

The problematic dichotomy of rule-adherence is most evident in Snape's 
case: very often he represents a perversion of the law, applying it only 
when it most subverts the 'fairness' that laws were designed to insure 
(i.e. every time he deducts points from Gryffindor), but in other cases 
his insistence on obedience is truly in the interest of the students' 
(and particularly Harry's) protection.

It's been suggested in both Snape and Percy's case that some prior 
traumatic event (that they blame themselves for) has resulted in their 
current attitudes. In her recent post #37373 Heidi made an excellent 
case for why Percy would have been a more vulnerable than his siblings 
to having the equation of rules and life-saving impressed upon him at a 
young age: LV's reign occurred right during his most formative, 
personality-shaping years. And as for Snape, whom I imagine I 
understand ;-), I'd have to say his confusing pattern of rage and 
over-protectiveness is consistent with what I've noticed in the real 
world from people who have suffered the death of a child or some other 
catastrophe which they felt responsible for yet were powerless to 
prevent. My interpretation is that he does in fact blame himself for the 
death of the Potters which occurred, as he sees it, on his shift.

And yet as much as I want to portray all this rule-adherence as loving 
and protective and all-good, in a way the text rarely bears this out. 
The Nimbus 2000 wasn't jinxed after all, Ron was never in danger of 
drowning, and Harry was never being stalked by a psycho-killer in 
Hogsmeade. Oddly, Harry needed to break the rules with the Time-Turner; 
he *did* see himself and that's what let him understand how to save 
everyone's soul from the dementors. Worse yet, Snape fails to protect 
Harry during the hairy climaxes of books 1, 2 & 4, and however 
protective Percy is of Ginny in CoS, he still fails to understand how 
endangered she actually is by her situation. If anything, the text often 
suggest that even the most well-meaning rule-adhering protectiveness is 
excessive, useless, or misapplied.

And of course half the time when Harry *breaks* rules it's a protective 
gesture; so far he's saved Norbert's and Buckbeck's lives, Sirius' soul, 
and occasionally the world at large by creative rule-breaking.

In fact, one of the issues frequently cited by those who feel the books 
are a bad influence on children is what they perceive as it's support 
for rule breaking. Even if we can usually argue that Harry and Co. break 
rules for a good reason, we still have to admit JKR writes the plot that 
way. This leads to a related question: what do we make of the 
extraordinary injustices of the Wizarding world in general? I mean it's 
obvious that 11 year old children will resent rules that restrict their 
curiosity and freedom, but JKR has set up a Potterverse in which abound 
injustices unthinkable in our society. It's clear from the circumstances 
of Sirius' imprisonment that not only are lawyers unheard of, but he was 
never even allowed visitors or the freedom to send an owl while 
incarcerated. There was a thread a while back asking why Dumbledore 
never visited him in prison. My interpretation is that it was simply 
forbidden: when Fudge goes to see Sirius it's not a visit, it's an 
*inspection* and when Crouch Sr. and his wife got to visit their son it 
was an exceptional circumstance that Crouch apparently had to pull 
strings and rely on rank to accomplish. Further miscarriages of justice 
abound, such as Buckbeak's conviction and Bagman's trial-as-popularity 
contest. And the most tragic (IMHO) example of a character whose actions 
make a perversion of rules is Crouch Sr.: his sentencing his own 
(apparently quite guilty) son is portrayed not as a measure of his 
justice but of his failings as a parent; while his later  attempt at 
'mercy,' policed by that nightmare of enforced rule-adherence the 
Imperius Curse, is yet even more misbegotten. To some extent, those 
complaining about the books favor of rule-breaking have a point; JKR 
*has* gone out of her way to portray a society whose sense of Law *must* 
be contested on ethical grounds.

So, questions:
Is the horror of Law and rule-abiding in the books justified? Do the 
books teach common-sense over blind following of rules, or to they 
promote a dangerous distrust of proper authority figures?

What do you think JKR's deal is with rules and rule-breaking? Is being a 
stickler for rules seen as a pathology? A symptom of a traumatized 
personality? Something to outgrow and get over? When is it ever a good 
idea?

When are characters punished or rewarded for rule breaking? What does 
this mean?

~~Porphyria, who will sign off with a lovely little poem from another 
not-just-for-children author, who also had a horror of the Law:

            Fury said to a mouse,
                  That he met in the
                         house, 'Let us
                            both go to law:
                             I will prosecute
                           you.-- Come, I'll
                          take no denial;
                        We must have
                      a trial: For
                    really this
                  morning I've
                nothing to do.'
                    Said the mouse
                          to the cur,
                            'Such a trial,
                               dear Sir, With
                                   no jury or
                                 judge, would
                                be wasting
                            our breath.'
                         'I'll be
                    judge, I'll
                  be jury,'
                Said cunning
              old Fury:
                 'I'll try
                   the whole
                     cause, and
                         condemn
                             you
                               to
                                death.'

	-- Lewis Carroll


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From catlady at wicca.net  Thu Apr  4 08:23:07 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 08:23:07 -0000
Subject: Tom Marvolo Riddle's mother / Ernie and Stan / Draco's mum
Message-ID: <a8h2hb+5g0o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37399

Pippin wrote:

> It would seem that she had been living as a Muggle, or her husband
> would have found out sooner that she was a witch.

Barb wrote:

> After all, she kept from him that she was a witch until after they
> were married 
(snip)
> (Although I'm willing to guess that it was a matter of having 
> a "thing" that she wanted--the Riddles were wealthy, after all.)

I am very fond of thinking that Tom Riddle Sr, never was married to 
Tom Riddle Jr's mother. It *was* the 1920s. I imagine this young 
witch (I like to call her Miranda, or sometimes Mirella) sneering at 
her parents' Victorian ideas and mouthing off about authenticity and 
naturalness and true love... If Tom Riddle Sr was anywhere near as 
charming as his son, there was no need for money to be involved in 
her falling quite sincerely in love with him... Think how shocked she 
was when he explained to her that he definitely wasn't going to marry 
her just because he'd gotten her pregnant! She had to tell her 
parents that they'd been right after all...

I like to think young Tom was born at home, where of course his 
mother's parents knew what she had wanted to name her son. They had 
probably criticised her plan to give the child a name that made it 
clearly obvious that he was a bastard of the son of the Big House, 
but they carried out their daughter's wish because she was dead... 
Young Tom lived with his grandparents until they died when he was two 
or three, maybe four ... old enough to remember that they had told 
him that his father had deserted his mother for being a witch, 
because they were too Victorian to tell him he was illegitimate... I 
enjoy the irony of Voldemort's whole hatred of Muggles being based 
on a fiction: if only he had known the truth, he could have crusaded 
against premarital sex instead.

I also like to think that young Tom, whom I believe to have been BORN 
with strong magic and a bad attitude, killed his loving grandparents 
by uncontrolled magic and a toddler's temper tantrum...

Zoe Hooch wrote:

> I have wondered about the witches and wizards who don't go to 
> Hogwarts, such as Stan Shunpike or Ernie Prang on the Wizard bus. 

Lucy wrote:

> Where did you get the impression that they didn't go to wizard 
> school though?

Maybe they were in Hufflepuff and THAT is the source of Hufflepuff's 
bad reputation as 'a bunch of duffers'.

Or, in my latest theory of how 4 Houses * 7 years * 10 kids (5 boys 
and 5 girls) = 1000 students at Hogwarts, only the 250-300 most 
magical kids go to Hogwarts Castle and the other 750-700 go to one, 
two, or three other wizard schools, BUT those other wizard schools 
are considered to be mere CAMPUSes of Hogwarts, under the same Board 
of Governors and same Headmaster (altho' actually run, day by day, 
by their Deputy Headmasters).

Alina wrote:

> Besides, the boy has got a doting mother, just remember all the 
> sweets she sent him and the fact that she wanted him to go to 
> Hogwarts just to keep him closer to home. 

In the Potterverse, names have meaning. Her name, Narcissa, is not 
just a flower name, a very uncommon flower name, but also a reference 
to Narcissism. That makes it difficult for me to believe that she 
*really* dotes on her son, as opposed to play-acting the doting 
mother at moments when he is play-acting the perfect son. It's 
entirely possible that Narcissa didn't *really* veto sending him to 
Durmstrang: we only have Draco's word for that. He might just have 
been talking big to impress his friends. 

I agree that canon Draco (unlike dear fanon Draco) is a nasty piece 
of work, not merely bigotted and murderous, but cowardly, and he says 
things that aren't too bright, and not very witty either (except a 
couple of remarks about the Blast-Ended Skrewts). But I tried to 
believe that his parents loved him, I wanted to believe it, and I 
have just been unable to believe that they view as anything more than 
a rather unsatisfactory pet whom it might still be possible to 
chastise into improvement.




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 08:34:51 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 08:34:51 -0000
Subject: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8ggtm+aon8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8h37c+91cd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37400

Zoe Hooch wonders:

> I have wondered about the witches and wizards who don't go to 
> Hogwarts, such as Stan Shunpike or Ernie Prang on the Wizard bus. 
> There have to be a number of them who've never set foot in a wizard 
> school. I wonder how they get their training? Is there a parallel 
> track for non-academic wizards?

I think they must go to school. It strikes me that the wizard 
population isn't very large (the size of Hogwarts, Ron's comment that 
they would have "died out" if they hadn't started marrying Muggles), 
so it would be easier to get all young witches and wizards into 
school than it is for the general population.

It's also more important that they make the extra effort, since 
wizards have powers - whether or not they've been trained to control 
them.

--Anna




From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Apr  4 08:31:59 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 03:31:59 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco abused? (was: Harry the Saviour?)/Harry the seer 
Message-ID: <55.2519d2a5.29dd697f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37401


Alina quotes Eileen quoting Melanie (I think I've got that right)
  
Melanie
> >I personally find Draco to be a very tragic character in HP, why?  I 
>   feel sorry for the guy.  I mean it's obvious that his father is a 
>   horrible man who in many ways is abusing his son, or it's definitely 
>   >

> Eileen:
>   I don't think it's implied at all. If you go through the archives, 
>   you can find lots on this topic. Just type in draco and abuse, but I 
>   think all the evidence points to the opposite. 
> 
Alina:
> I agree, I am really surprised at how many people seem to think that Draco 
> is an abused child who's only mean to people either because his father 
> wants him to be or because he's taking his abuse out on other people. I 
> doubt Lucius Malfoy is "baseball in the park" type of father, but really he 
> doesn't seem like the type of man to hit his son either. More like the 
> father who's never there and Draco is trying to get his dad to notice him. 
> Besides, the boy has got a doting mother, just remember all the sweets she 
> sent him and the fact that she wanted him to go to Hogwarts just to keep 
> him closer to home. 

This has been discussed before, I know, but to throw in my two knuts....
It all rather depends on how you define abuse, doesn't it? Does it always 
involve active mistreatment or is it sometimes the absence of what are 
considered the normal emotional rights of childhood? We've mentioned before 
in connection with Molly, Winicott's concept of the 'good enough' parent 
(thanks to the person who reminded me whose term it was!). Where do we draw 
the line between failure to be 'good enough' and being in a state of abuse? 

I guess I fall into the camp of those who see Draco not being actively abused 
in any physical way. However, I do suspect he's emotionally deprived, at 
least where his father's concerned. Of course, we don't know a lot. The 
exchanges in Borgin and Burkes don't imply an affectionate relationship, nor 
does Draco saying he is going to force his father to buy him a broom in his 
first year. I have the impression of a man who is cold towards his son, who 
expects much but expresses dissatisfaction and a son who regards his father 
as a source of material goods. 

As for his mother, it is true that she wants him near and showers him with 
sweets. I assume all those packages he gets in the post are from her as well. 
But this doesn't tell us the quality of their relationship. If Lucius is in 
fact a cold man, it may be that Narcissa wants her son near to fulfil her 
*own* emotional needs and the spoiling may be an attempt to buy his affection.

Given the themes of parental (and particularly paternal) influence/ absence/ 
failings in the series, I do think that we're supposed to see the Malfoys as 
less than ideal. Draco has a father whom he at once seems to look up to and 
imitate (yes Eileen, can't you just hear Lucius coming out with all those 
come backs first) but with whom he has no meaningful relationship. He is 
learning about power and influence and how to manipulate people to get what 
you want, but none of the deeper things of life. 
The Weasleys may be deprived materially of many things but they are in a 
better position to cope with the rigours of life. Draco, who we assume has 
materially lacked for nothing, has nowhere near the resoursefulness of Harry 
or Ron.
.......................

Debbie (of the amazing memory):

>I believe there may be a problem in acclaiming Harry (or Ron) as a seer 
based 
>on predictions they made while faking their divination homework.  Reading 
>Trelawney's assignment carefully, she asks for predictions for the next 
>month.  And Harry and Ron adhere to this.  For example, Harry writes that 
"on 
>Monday, I will be in danger of -- er -- burns."  But the First Task did not 
>happen until November - two months later, and it took place on a Tuesday.  
>The other events also did not happen within the timeframe covered by 
>Trelawney's assignment.  In my view, these predictions are as accurate as 
>Trelawney's prediction that the thing Lavender was dreading would happen on 
>the 16th of October.  Something happened on the the 16th of October 
(Lavender 
>was informed that Binky had died) but she admitted she wasn't dreading it.  
>Of course, the degree to which their intentionally made-up predictions did 
>come true is wonderfully ironic, and I bet JKR had great fun with this 
>passage, even if she didn't know how we would dissect it.

Well you know, I'm not so sure. I think Dicentra had a good point on this 
one. 
To me, the significant thing is that Harry, as far as he was concerned, *was* 
making up the predictions. The assignation to specific dates was a function 
of the specific piece of homework set. Their coming true isn't just irony, it 
is where his unrecognised ability as a seer comes through.

Trelawney has set them a very specific piece of work, which Harry and Ron 
fail to do.
They aren't using the methods they're supposed to. Instead of coming up with 
a specific astrological predictions for specific days, Harry, if we accept 
Dicentra's proposal, is coming up with less specific but nevertheless true 
predictions which depend on nothing but his own innate and unrecognised 
ability and then, because he doesn't realise what he's doing, he slots them 
into his chart. Similarly, Trelawney's true prediction comes unconsciously 
(in her case, literally) rather than through one of the divination 
*techniques* she teaches.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From eb3g at ivillage.com  Thu Apr  4 05:45:58 2002
From: eb3g at ivillage.com (jillily3g)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 05:45:58 -0000
Subject: Seers
In-Reply-To: <a8fc4l+75gf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8gpam+c3km@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37402

What if, in a weird sort of way, these are self-fulfilling
prophecies, 
sort of like Neville and the broken teacup, but on a subconcious 
level? What if it's a "be careful what you wish for" situation?

Strange thought late at night. Let's see how everyone dissects it! ;-)

Beth





From carrie at williamstucker.freeserve.co.uk  Thu Apr  4 08:15:42 2002
From: carrie at williamstucker.freeserve.co.uk (carrie1138)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 08:15:42 -0000
Subject: Voldy's mum
In-Reply-To: <a8gfdf+5vhp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8h23e+v03v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37403

Dave had some interesting questions about Voldemort's mum:

>Is there anyone besides me who wants to know more about this elusive
>figure who died in childbirth but apparently held out long enough to
>name her son after the bum who deserted her?

>And was she a Slytherin?  (I say, "Not necessarily.")

Then Barb said:
>As the last remaining heir to Slytherin, I have no doubt this is the 
house she was in. Where else? 

Now me:
I'm not so sure she was a Slytherin. Is Voldemort's Slytherin 
heritage definitely from her side of the family? I can't recall 
offhand whether Tom Riddle Jr says so or not, maybe someone else 
could kindly look that up? ;-) Of course, if it does come from her 
side of the family, then she would have to have been a Slytherin, but 
I quite like the idea that the Slytherin heritage was on the Riddle 
side of the family, just diluted by years of interbreeding and 
waiting for another "magic gene" to come along to activate it.

Dave also asked:
>And would mum be proud of what her son
>has become or (as I'm curently imagining) appalled?

Me:
Hmm. Very interesting. I wonder what Ma Voldemort *would* think of 
her son's behaviour. I like the idea of her being appalled by it. But 
how could we ever find out what she thought? Well, if she was a 
ghost, of course! JKR has said that we will find out more about 
ghosts in later books, about why people become ghosts. Wouldn't 
Voldemort's mother be an interesting ghost to see?

-Carrie1138 (coming out of lurkdom for only the second time ever)





From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  4 12:31:44 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:31:44 -0000
Subject: Voldy's mum
In-Reply-To: <47140651533.20020403121532@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a8hh3g+efa5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37405


Dave asked:
> Is there anyone besides me who wants to know more about this elusive
> figure who died in childbirth but apparently held out long enough to
> name her son after the bum who deserted her?
> 

Also:
> And will we ever get any clues as to how Tom got so evil so fast?
> He seems to have left Annakin Skywalker in the dust in the "get
> evil at an early age" race.  And would mum be proud of what her son
> has become or (as I'm curently imagining) appalled?

I think that a reasonable solution to both questions (how the child 
got his name and how he got so evil), is that the mother left a 
letter, prepared against the possiblity of her death. This kind of 
letter would of course include directions as to naming the child 
(what name would she have picked if it were a girl? Marvola?). 
I also imagine that enclosed in it would be another letter to be kept 
for her child. In this letter she would reveal child's magic origin, 
it's illustrious ancestry and, most importantly, it's abandonment by 
a Muggle father. I think that Tom Riddle knew at quite an early age 
(because of such a letter) of his family history. As a neglected and 
unloved child at the orphanage, the narcissitic fantasy of hidden 
greatness (which such children often develop) would be nourished by 
knowing himslef to be Slytherin's only direct heir. At the same time, 
the fantastic anger and hatred of an unloved child would find it's 
focus in the image of the abandoning father. That obsessive and 
absolute hatred would find it's expression later, in killing the 
father and paternal grandparents. This killing (in my mind) 
functioned, for Tom, as a very dark rite of passage: destroying the 
father, who, by abandoning him, acquired complete power over his 
childhood. Empowerment as an adult would mean, therefore, overcoming 
the father (very Freudian, isn't it?). I see him as heading straight 
to the Riddle manor immediately after graduation. That would make 
killing his father the first act he has ever done as an adult (and a 
fully qualified wizard). If so, it might very well have been the 
first time that he had used Avada Kedavra on a human being. He had 
probably experimented on animals, but would save it up, so to speak, 
to use for the first time on his filth of a father (truly 
a "mudblood"). 
This first murder, by the way, not only symbolizes liberation and 
victory over the father but also rebellion against ALL authority. By 
performing AK as the very first act in adulthood, he puts himself (in 
fact and symbolically) in absolute and inherent opposition to the 
ruling norms that he had seemingly complied with until then.

Thoughts, anybody?


Naama





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Thu Apr  4 12:54:08 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:54:08 -0000
Subject: Foreshadowing  (was  Re: Arthur Weasley, With Imperius Curse )
In-Reply-To: <a8fpup+makf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8hidg+ij6t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37406

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <skelkins at a...> wrote:

> > Further speculations about missing Weasley children, Arthur's 
> > particular demeanor when telling the children about the 
> significance 
> > of the Dark Mark at the end of Chapter 9 of GoF, Bill's 
> contributions 
> > to that particular conversation, literary parallels between Percy 
> > Weasley and Barty Crouch, and how any of that might intersect 
with 
> > the series' thematic emphasis on damaged families, secrets, the 
> > effects of the past upon the present, and father-son 
relationships, 
> I 
> > will leave to the cruel and ruthlessly bloody minds of my fellow 
> > FEATHERBOAS.
> 
> > Now, Chapter 9. In HPforGrownups at y..., 

"lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote

> "Did you get them, Dad?" said Bill sharply. "The person who 
conjured 
> the Mark?"
> 
> which indicates that Bill knows what the Mark is. It's Ron who asks 
> all the questions in the net bit, and I think it's correct to 
assume 
> that Percy and Charlie aren't in the dark.
> 
> Bill, though, is a fountain of information on the subject. After 
all, 
> he was at Hogwarts back in those days.
> 
> Now, how about this line.
> 
> "The terror it inspired ... you have no idea, you're too young. 
Just 
> picture coming home, and finding the Dark Mark hovering over your 
> house, and knowing what you're about to find inside ..." Mr. 
Weasley 
> winced. 'Everyone's worst fear ... the very worst ..."
> 
> "There was silence for a moment."
> 
> Missing Weasley children anyone? 
> 
> And, if they do exist, I don't think the younger children know. 
It's 
> not a healthy response to death but people do it

An alternative explanation for this is that Arthur Weasley is 
actually foreshadowing the future. Arthur stands out as a pureblood 
muggle-lover. He hates and is hated by Lucius Malfoy. Even before he 
starts any campaign against Voldemort in the MOM, IMO he has already 
done enough to tempt the viciousness and wrath of certain DEs. Add to 
this that the twins threw snowballs at Voldemort (when he was in 
Quirrel's turban on PS/SS). Then compound this with Ron and indeed 
the whole family's friendship and love of the hated Harry Potter.

Is there a better way of getting at Harry (as they seem to have 
trouble physically getting at him), than by getting at those he loves?

Arthur might be merely remembering the dread every wizard felt before 
returning home. He might also be foreshadowing the future, he is at 
work all day, and could easily come home and find...

 I do agree that this paragraph in Chapter 9 certainly feels very 
significant, and I am sure it will be alluded to in the future.

Ali

(Who is currently enjoying an unheard of period of warm and sunny 
weather in England, nornmally deep in grey skies and April showers at 
this time of year!)






From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Thu Apr  4 13:02:09 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:02:09 -0000
Subject: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8h37c+91cd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8hish+6159@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37407

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "saintbacchus" <saintbacchus at y...> wrote:
> Zoe Hooch wonders:
> 
> > I have wondered about the witches and wizards who don't go to 
> > Hogwarts, such as Stan Shunpike or Ernie Prang on the Wizard bus. 
> > There have to be a number of them who've never set foot in a wizard 
> > school. I wonder how they get their training? Is there a parallel 
> > track for non-academic wizards?
> 
> I think they must go to school. It strikes me that the wizard 
> population isn't very large (the size of Hogwarts, Ron's comment that 
> they would have "died out" if they hadn't started marrying Muggles), 
> so it would be easier to get all young witches and wizards into 
> school than it is for the general population.
> 
> It's also more important that they make the extra effort, since 
> wizards have powers - whether or not they've been trained to control 
> them.

But we have evidence that not all wizards go to Hogwarts -- the fact that 
Hogwarts send out acceptance notification letters, for one, rather than all 
wizarding children assuming they're going there (as muggle kids would assume 
they're going to the local public high school).  

Surely Stan wouldn't have the wits to pass most of the coursework we've seen 
the kids doing!

In HPSS Neville explains, "I bounced -- all the way down the
garden and into the road. They were all really pleased, Gran was
crying, she was so happy. And you should have seen their faces when
I got in here -- they thought I might not be magic enough to come".  This  implies 
that there are degrees of wizarding talent and those with less don't get in (quite 
apart from no-talent squibbs).  

And surely Hagrid isn't the only student ever to be expelled.

If (as has been debated endlessly here) Hogwarts charges tuition, there might 
even be families that can't or won't pay for their children's tuition or expenses.  
Seems inconceivable, especially with Hogwarts' prestige, but I've seen it happen 
in Muggle families, and wizards seem prone to just as many quirks and irrational 
behaviors as Muggles.

I therefore assume that there are wizards out there whose education is entirely 
homeschooling, as this is how the Hogwarts children from wizarding families 
seem to get their earlier education.




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Thu Apr  4 14:12:46 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:12:46 -0000
Subject: On following rules
In-Reply-To: <3637CC69-47BB-11D6-B637-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a8hn0u+p881@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37408

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
> 
> But what this really got me thinking about is the whole question of 
> following rules as it's presented in the series. Characters as 
otherwise 
> different in personality as Hermione, Snape and Percy all have (or 
claim 
> to have) a tendency to stick to rules to the point where it becomes 
a fault. 

<snip> 

*
> In fact, one of the issues frequently cited by those who feel the 
books are a bad influence on children is what they perceive as it's 
support for rule breaking. Even if we can usually argue that Harry 
and Co. break  rules for a good reason, we still have to admit JKR 
writes the plot that  way. This leads to a related question: what do 
we make of the extraordinary injustices of the Wizarding world in 
general? I mean it's  obvious that 11 year old children will resent 
rules that restrict their  curiosity and freedom, but JKR has set up 
a Potterverse in which abound  injustices unthinkable in our society. 
It's clear from the circumstances  of Sirius' imprisonment that not 
only are lawyers unheard of, but he was  never even allowed visitors 
or the freedom to send an owl while  incarcerated. There was a thread 
a while back asking why Dumbledore  never visited him in prison. My 
interpretation is that it was simply forbidden: when Fudge goes to 
see Sirius it's not a visit, it's an  *inspection* and when Crouch 
Sr. and his wife got to visit their son it  was an exceptional 
circumstance that Crouch apparently had to pull 
> strings and rely on rank to accomplish. Further miscarriages of 
justice  abound, such as Buckbeak's conviction and Bagman's trial-as-
popularity  contest. And the most tragic (IMHO) example of a 
character whose actions  make a perversion of rules is Crouch Sr.: 
his sentencing his own  (apparently quite guilty) son is portrayed 
not as a measure of his  justice but of his failings as a parent; 
while his later  attempt at  'mercy,' policed by that nightmare of 
enforced rule-adherence the  Imperius Curse, is yet even more 
misbegotten. To some extent, those  complaining about the books favor 
of rule-breaking have a point; JKR  *has* gone out of her way to 
portray a society whose sense of Law *must*  be contested on ethical 
grounds.
> 
> So, questions:
> Is the horror of Law and rule-abiding in the books justified? Do 
the 
> books teach common-sense over blind following of rules, or to they 
> promote a dangerous distrust of proper authority figures?
> 
> What do you think JKR's deal is with rules and rule-breaking? Is 
being a 
> stickler for rules seen as a pathology? A symptom of a traumatized 
> personality? Something to outgrow and get over? When is it ever a 
good 
> idea?
> 
> When are characters punished or rewarded for rule breaking? What 
does 
> this mean?


One of the key issues to the question of Harry Potter on following 
rules - and also on the sister complaint, that the books seem to 
glorify lying, is that the books are told from Harry's point of view.

If you think about Harry's background, he will have seen a world of 
pointless rules there to increase his miserableness. The Dursleys had 
loads of rules which he ended up breaking, unintentionally, and 
therefore spent weeks shut up in a cupboard. The people who made the 
rules were unfair. Dudley could do no wrong, Harry could do no right. 
Even the other people in authority who should have helped him, seemed 
only to punish him for breaking other rules. Whilst there are very 
good reasons why children should not climb school buildings, the 
issue about why Harry was up there (to avoid another beating) does 
not seem to have been dealt with; Harry bullied and bewildered was 
punished again.

Harry has been let down by the rulemakers in the past and has 
therefore learnt that breaking them is a means of survival (like 
sneaking food out of the kitchen when the Dursleys are asleep after 
the zoo incident in PS/SS). Harry has learned to live with rules but 
not necessarily to accept them or be bound by them.

In GoF p35 English Hardback edition:

"Gone were the days when he had been forced to follow every single 
one of the Dursleys' stupid rules"

Our views of Wizarding rules and law will be coloured by Harry's 
attitude. Nevertheless we are shown an anachronistic society where 
discrimination and arbitrary laws seem to abound. What we donot know 
is how much of the time the WW has spent in a state of anarchy - 
perhaps one bad wizard after another has sought to take control. 
Perhaps the likes of Dumbledore (good and strong) have been rare. 
Perhaps the appeasers and bumblers as exemplified by Fudge have been 
more common, as the WW seeks to preserve the relative peace and 
harmony. If this is the case then the state of war which allowed 
Sirius to be sent,untried to Azkaban might be the usual state of 
affairs. Although it does seem that Voldemort's reign of terror was 
particularly bad.

IMO WW cannot have the same attitude to justice as the muggles 
society, as the powers of its members are just too strong. Allowing 
visitors to Azkaban would seem to allow much greater risks than 
allowing visitors to a Muggle Prison. Remember that the KISS is only 
used as a last resort, and death used only when effectively in a 
combat situation. Thus they have to protect their society by some 
means, which seems to be isolating their criminals totally from 
society. This in no way justifies their lack of trial but perhaps 
goes some way to explaining it.

I donot think that the conviction of Buckbeak stands alongside the 
lack of conviction of Sirius as an Injustice. Buckbeak is not a 
human, and is being treated more as we would treat a vicious dog. He 
is given some sort of a trial, but it is down to the incompetence of 
Hagrid - and the evil malevolence of Lucius that he loses. I can see 
this kind of situation being mirrored in muggle society. It is not 
right, it is not just, but it does happen.


Ali




From christi0469 at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  4 14:24:43 2002
From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:24:43 -0000
Subject: Harry the Seer (was: Does Ron the Seer need glasses?)
In-Reply-To: <a8fsgq+574h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8hnnb+pg9m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37409

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" <dicentra at x> wrote:

> Ok, here's something to choke on. Go to the next page, where Harry
> finishes up his homework. The last thing he makes up is to predict 
his
> own death by decapitation. It's a funny line in the context of the
> scene (and it's undoubtedly funny to Harry), but given that the 
other
> things mentioned came true, what are we to think about the
> decapitation? Is that how Harry will die in the end?  Is it how he
> will NEARLY die in the end? (Of course, Pettigrew has to take his
> place because of the life-debt. Or at least that's the theory.) He
> certainly didn't escape decapitation at the end of GoF.
> 
> --Dicentra, who wishes she hadn't noticed it


There is the bit where Harry and Ron are duelling with fake wands at 
the back of McGonagal's classroom. Harry's turns into a haddock and 
Ron's turns into a tin parrot. Ron's parrot decapitates Harry's 
haddock. Not exactly Harry's death by decapitation, though. I hope 
this is not some kind of foreshadowing.

Christi




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Thu Apr  4 14:38:10 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:38:10 -0000
Subject: Just In Time (filk)
Message-ID: <a8hogi+fbku@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37410

Just in Time (from PoA, Chap. 21)

(to the tune of Just in Time, from the musical Bells Are Ringing)

Dedicated to Jenny of Ravenclaw 

A MIDI can be heard at 

http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/bells_are_ringing.html

Here Sinatra's take on the original at:

http://www.cdnow.com/switch/from=sr-
2920853/target=buyweb_purchase/itemid=328531

THE SCENE: Atop the battlements of the West Tower. SIRIUS BLACK, 
riding on Buckbeak, thanks Harry & Hermione as he prepares to escape.

BLACK
Just in time, you found me just in time 
Before you came, my time was runnin' down
No debate, I sat here to await
`Mentors who osculate, doomed for Ghost Town.
Now you're here and now I know just who I'm flyin'
No more Snape or Fudge, you bought Buckbeak
For Herm came to turn time
Harry came just in time
You proved you're James' son, you are unique! 

Just in time, you turned up just in time
Before you came, my cause was hopeless lost
Who would give hope to a fugitive 
Granted no right to live, twice double-crossed.
The `griff  you saved, and now I know where we'll be headin'
Not in canine shape, I shall escape
For Herm came to turn time
Harry came just in time

(Buckbeak begins flying upward)

You're truly James' son, you've set me free!
I'll proclaim at once
You are your father's son!
You're truly James' son, you've set me free! 

(Black and Buckbeak ascend into the clouds)

   - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 





From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 14:19:21 2002
From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:19:21 -0000
Subject: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8ggtm+aon8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8hnd9+217n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37411

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" <zoehooch at y...> wrote:
> I have wondered about the witches and wizards who don't go to 
> Hogwarts, such as Stan Shunpike or Ernie Prang on the Wizard bus. 
> There have to be a number of them who've never set foot in a wizard 
> school. I wonder how they get their training? Is there a parallel 
> track for non-academic wizards?
> 
> Just curious,
> Zoe Hooch


There have also been several references to Hogwarts being the "best" 
wizarding school.  Can it be the best if it is the only school?  I 
think there are probably different, less challenging, wizard schools 
around and Hogwarts is just for the "elite" wizards.

Gretchen





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Apr  4 14:52:08 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:52:08 -0000
Subject: On following rules
In-Reply-To: <3637CC69-47BB-11D6-B637-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a8hpao+3p47@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37412

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:

> What do you think JKR's deal is with rules and rule-breaking? Is
being a 
> stickler for rules seen as a pathology? A symptom of a traumatized 
> personality? Something to outgrow and get over? When is it ever a
good 
> idea?

My $.01's worth on the matter:

First of all, while I think JKR does have moral points to make in the
books, she's been pretty good about not letting the morals get in the
way of the fun.  A story about schoolkids who follow the rules and get
duly rewarded for it is just not a lot of fun.  

That said, I do think the books make a clear distinction between
"good" and "bad" rule-breaking.  Draco breaks rules for selfish
reasons, and he never gets to win in the end.  When Harry gratuitously
breaks rules just to sneak into Hogsmeade, he's reprimanded not only
by Snape, but also by Lupin -- a sympathetic character whose opinions
the readers are meant to take seriously.  In Quidditch, Slytherins
cheat and foul, while the Gryffindors play clean -- and the
Gryffindors always beat the Slytherins.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Thu Apr  4 15:11:43 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:11:43 -0000
Subject: On following rules
In-Reply-To: <3637CC69-47BB-11D6-B637-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a8hqff+fadd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37413

Greetings!

Porphyria came up with some top-notch questions based on the Percy
discussion.

I have a general response, since I realize that my answer addresses
all her specific questions, kinda. In general, I think JKR's "deal"
with rule-breaking is a question of degree.

I think the books show that not all rules or laws are equal. Some are
more and less important. I think that she is trying to promote a
*healthy* questioning of authority. Those who are presented negatively
in the books are people who are following rules blindly and just for
the sake of upholding them.

I think another point she makes is that we aren't always happy with
the constrictions rules place upon us, but that there are times when
following them is for the best, and times when it is better to break
them. For example, when Hermione tells McGonagall about the Firebolt,
yes, Harry is unhappy. And Hermione is upset not because she doubts
her action, but because taking the stand made Ron and Harry angry at
her. But it turns out in the end that her suspicions were right, even
though Sirius had no motive to harm Harry. Lesson: better safe than sorry.

When characters *do* decide to break rules for good reasons, reasons
of "moral fiber," as Dumbledore would put it, they are shown
sympathetically. When characters break rules for their own
satisfaction, it is presented less as less ideal. Again, there's a
question of scale at work. Fred and George sneak into the kitchens,
but as HRH learn later, there's no provision upon the house-elves
against providing snacks. The only rule broken then really is being
out of the common room after hours. In the grand scale, that's not a
very important rule. Hence, little consequence if caught (a detention,
a few points, no real harm done).

But the larger the infraction and the more sensible the rule, the
worse the characters appear to us. When Barty Sr. arranges to switch
his wife and his son, he is taking the law into his own hands, and as
it turns out, he is abetting a dangerous criminal, aiding his eventual
escape. The strain on father and son in this episode is not
sympathetic at all, and neither benefits from it in the end. On the
scale, it's a more drastic case of law-breaking, and thus a more dire
consequence.

I do think there are inconsistencies in this portrayal, but that
overall, Rowling is using a combination of respect and common sense.
She acknowledges that there must be some order to the world, or else
it will be impossible to navigate. But at the same time, she cautions
that not all rules are to be followed to the same degree, and not in
all circumstances.

Gwen





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Thu Apr  4 15:20:31 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:20:31 -0000
Subject: FF/TBAY: The Captain returns
In-Reply-To: <005101c1db24$8d2062a0$8b31c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a8hqvv+3pti@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37414

Tabouli wrote:
>>> Ama:
> > R.I.C.K.'S.T.H.E.B.O.S.S.? S.O.P.E? Yikes. Tabouli's
> gonna kick our hineys when she gets back.<
> 
> Grey Wolf:
> > Well, we'll just have to make sure she doesn't know about it, won't we?=
 
> ;-) ::wink, wink::<
> 
> At this second comment, which bears what appears to be a large pawprint, =
Tabouli chuckles, her kicking foot twitching quietly to itself.  While she w=
elcomes acronyms from other providers, and is always on the lookout for new =
TAGS staff, she is mildly amused that people think they can escape the glare=
 of her spies and her All Seeing Eye...
> 
> Grey Wolf (filling in for Tabouli's Acronym-machine while she's on holida=
y):
> 
> > R.I.C.K.'S.T.H.E.B.O.S.S, anyone? (Ron Identified with 
> the Chess Knigth: Surpasses his Triunfant, Heroic or Excelent Brothers 
> Only by Self-Sacrifice<
> 
> Tabouli considers this application, which addresses the worthy and popula=
r theory that Ron Is Doomed (RID?), and enters it into her acronym generator=
.  It gurgles thoughtfully for a moment, and then sadly issues a piece of bl=
ack-bordered paper with S.A.C.R.I.F.I.C.E. (Sacrifice Awaits Condemned Ron, =
Insidiously Foreshadowed In Chess Exploits) printed on it.  She nods regally=
, and inserts it next to RICK'S THE BOSS in her files.
> 
> Tabouli.<<<

Unknown to the good captain Tabouli, a great grey shadow proyects over 
her ship. At the top of a nearby fjord, a grey wolf spies on her 
movements, watching with a wolfish grin her belief in her spy network. 
Fortunately, she hasn't yet realized that there is no such thing as an 
"All Seeing Eye". The moon is high, and the great wolf rises his muzzle 
to bay triumphantly to the moon. One acronym has bypassed her security 
measures! Some day, not today, nor tomorrow, but some day, he'll be 
able to discover how TAGS works, and he'll be able to build his own 
version (operable by paws, of course).

Which means: Tabouli, you missed one of the acronyms that popped up 
while you were away. It was proposed by my adversary in the discussion 
of elves's enslavement (n? 37112), Laura (which was nice of her, since 
it's the acronym for MY theory, which she didn't believe in):

Laura proposed:
> E.N.S.L.A.V.E.M.E.N.T (Elves Need Slavery Least Aggression and 
> Violence Erupt, Making Extinction Near Threat)
> 
> laura

I wouldn't like one of my theories to be lost, and I know that you take 
good care of acronyms, so as long as the acronym survives, my theory 
will continue to live (although, in this case, maybe can(n)on will sink 
it in the next books).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who would like to know how many inches are in a foot, since, 
it being an english measure, it cannot be simply 10 in = 1 ft. In words 
of Terry Pratchett:
	
	NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = Five Pee. It 
helps to understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you 
know the original British monetary system:
        Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three 
pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = 
One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and one Sixpence = 
Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One 
Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.The 
British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they 
thought it was too complicated.
		Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens

GW





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Apr  4 15:20:28 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:20:28 -0000
Subject: Snape:  Vampire vs. Dementor
In-Reply-To: <a8gufg+5ci2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8hqvs+f5p4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37415

Cindy wrote:

> 
> So, you see, Snape-As-Part-Dementor is unassailable.  It's 
> canonical.  It's rather Bangy.  It's, uh, tremendously unpopular.  
> What's not to like?  :-)

Dene Moore of the Canadian Press reports the following 

http://www.canoe.ca/JamHarryPotter/oct25_potter-cp.html

"One young Canadian boy earlier asked her how Dementors 
breed. 
"I was just so pleased that he thought about it and pleased that I 
had the answer," "

The answer, according to the article is: 

"These evil creatures don't, by the way, breed but grow like a 
fungus where there is decay. "

Pippin
Who admits Snape's classroom would be a perfect spawning 
ground for Dementors if Dumbledore allowed them in the 
Castle.





From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 15:39:11 2002
From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:39:11 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, a relative of Harry's?
Message-ID: <a8hs2v+53ij@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37416

I posted this a while ago, when the site was acting up, and it never 
got posted so I am trying again.

I have been thinking about Harry/Dumbledore again.  I still think 
that Harry is related to him somehow.  There have been a few 
arguments about the safety zone/Harry's relatives and how could 
Voldermort get to Harry at school if Dumbledore was a relative.  
Well, if you think about it, Harry was safe when Dumbledore was at 
school, HOWEVER, in SS, Dumbledore was called to London on MoM 
business when Harry met Voldermort, in CoS, Dumbledore was removed 
from the school by the Board of Governers and was off grounds and in 
GoF, Harry was transported to the graveyard so Harry was not at 
Hogwarts.  Is it possible that since Dumbledore would have to take 
Harry everywhere he went if Harry lived with him as a young child, 
that sending him to the Dursley's was the only real possibility?

Also when Harry goes to Dumbledore's office for the first time, he 
mentions that the doorknocker was a Gryffin.  Dumbledore also is in 
possession of Gryffindor's Sword.  Could Dumbledore also be a 
desecendent of Gryffindor?  

"mrflynn6"





From ComtessadeChats at cs.com  Thu Apr  4 15:24:30 2002
From: ComtessadeChats at cs.com (ComtessadeChats at cs.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:24:30 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do all wizards go to school?
Message-ID: <125.e9becc5.29ddca2e@cs.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37417

 Joanne0012 at aol.com writes:

> I therefore assume that there are wizards out there whose education is 
> entirely 
>  homeschooling, as this is how the Hogwarts children from wizarding 
families 
>  seem to get their earlier education.

  This makes me wonder how the Weasley's pay for their children's education.  
Percy probably has a scholarship, but what about the rest of them?  I wonder 
if there is some form of financial aid?  Molly seems like the type to 
homeschool, if that option were available.  What about Harry?  Is the tuition 
coming out of his vault?

   ~~~LYSA~~~




From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 16:42:51 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:42:51 -0000
Subject: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <125.e9becc5.29ddca2e@cs.com>
Message-ID: <a8hvqb+s24g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37418

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., ComtessadeChats at c... wrote:

>   This makes me wonder how the Weasley's pay for their children's 
education.  
> Percy probably has a scholarship, but what about the rest of them?  
I wonder 
> if there is some form of financial aid?  Molly seems like the type 
to 
> homeschool, if that option were available.  What about Harry?  Is 
the tuition 
> coming out of his vault?

A reminder that we have no canonical proof that tuition is charged at 
Hogwarts. I'm of the opinion that there is no tuition at all and that 
these charges are covered by a sizable endowment. 

Zoe Hooch




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 16:46:45 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:46:45 -0000
Subject: What did Tom know and when did he know it? (was: Voldy's mum)
In-Reply-To: <a8hh3g+efa5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8i01l+o279@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37419

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> wrote:
> the mother left a letter, prepared against the possiblity of her 
> death. This kind of letter would of course include directions as 
> to naming the child (what name would she have picked if it were a 
> girl? Marvola?). 

> I also imagine that enclosed in it would be another letter to be 
> kept for her child. In this letter she would reveal child's magic 
> origin, it's illustrious ancestry and, most importantly, it's 
> abandonment by a Muggle father. I think that Tom Riddle knew at 
> quite an early age (because of such a letter) of his family 
> history. 

Somehow this seems unlikely.  This was a sudden death, and as a 
witch she would probably not expect to die in childbirth; she would 
probably have been going to a competent witch-midwife, who would be 
able to prevent a such a death.  I think the fact that she died in 
childbirth is something that heavily supports her having given birth 
in a Muggle environment and unexpectedly.  When would she have time 
to write a letter, let alone TWO letters?  And while she's doing all 
this correspondence, why not assign a guardian to the child?  But 
she did not; her death was a complete surprise to her, IMHO.

> As a neglected and unloved child at the orphanage, the narcissitic 
> fantasy of hidden greatness (which such children often develop) 
> would be nourished by knowing himslef to be Slytherin's only 
> direct heir. 

While Tom Riddle may very well have had fantasies of being an 
important person and the heir of an important person while living in 
the orphanage (this very common fairy tale theme is the kind of 
fantasy that is, after all, at the center of the Harry Potter 
stories--Harry the orphan learns he is a wizard and responsible for 
the downfall of a formidible dark wizard, etc., etc.) I doubt he 
would have needed knowledge of his background to nourish this kind 
of fantasy, and he probably didn't learn of his background until he 
went to Hogwarts.

One has to wonder what the orphanage staff would have made of an owl 
delivering a letter to young Tom, and how he would have shopped for 
his school supplies, let alone pay for them.  Perhaps his mother 
also had a vault with some money put by, and he finally gained 
access to this once he started school.  This would also imply that, 
like Harry, his mother's parents were dead.  Sometimes, for folks 
who are supposed to live so long, witches and wizards have a 
convenient knack for dropping dead when a child "needs" to be an 
orphan with no relatives...

> At the same time, the fantastic anger and hatred of an unloved 
> child would find it's focus in the image of the abandoning father. 
> That obsessive and absolute hatred would find it's expression 
> later, in killing the father and paternal grandparents. This 
> killing (in my mind) functioned, for Tom, as a very dark rite of 
> passage: destroying the father, who, by abandoning him, acquired 
> complete power over his childhood. Empowerment as an adult would 
> mean, therefore, overcoming the father (very Freudian, isn't it?). 

Presumably, he would also have been avenging his mother, whose death 
he no doubt laid at his father's doorstep.  A reversal of the 
Orestes plot, in which Orestes killed his mother (Clytemnestra) to 
avenge her killing his father (Agamemnon).

> I see him as heading straight to the Riddle manor immediately 
> after graduation. That would make killing his father the first act 
> he has ever done as an adult (and a fully qualified wizard). If 
> so, it might very well have been the first time that he had used 
> Avada Kedavra on a human being. He had probably experimented on 
> animals, but would save it up, so to speak, to use for the first 
> time on his filth of a father (truly a "mudblood"). 

While this may have been his first act after finishing school, it 
was hardly his first time attacking those with "unclean" blood.  
(And his father was a Muggle, not a Mudblood, who is a Muggle-born 
witch or wizard).  When he was sixteen he was responsible for 
opening the Chamber of Secrets, releasing a basilisk for the purpose 
of "cleansing" the school of Muggle-borns (although how the basilisk 
was supposed to differentiate between pure-bloods and Muggle-borns 
was never clear to me).  He obviously knew the history of why 
Slytherin had a falling out with Gryffindor, and, after doing some 
digging, he undoubtedly learned of his Muggle father (someone at the 
orphanage could have told him that they contacted the Riddles, who 
denied that their son Tom could be the father--young Tom, not being 
a trusting person, would not believe this).  The only reason he 
closed the chamber again was that the headmaster informed him that 
the school would probably close down, and, like Harry, Hogwarts was 
his escape from the horrible Muggle world.  As much as he had 
developed a hatred of Muggles and Muggle-born magical people, he 
didn't want to lose his haven.

> This first murder, by the way, not only symbolizes liberation and 
> victory over the father but also rebellion against ALL authority. 
> By performing AK as the very first act in adulthood, he puts 
> himself (in fact and symbolically) in absolute and inherent 
> opposition to the ruling norms that he had seemingly complied with 
> until then.

As noted above, this wasn't his first murder; he was already in 
opposition to the "ruling norms," although, as you noted, he did 
SEEM to comply with them.  Another way he managed to "attack" a 
person of "unclean" blood is by framing Hagrid, who was expelled. 
(Hagrid is a mix of giant and wizarding blood.)  So he didn't feel 
the need to wait for the end of his seventh year to do this.  In 
fact, I never got the impression that he was out of school when he 
killed his parents.  For some reason, I thought he was going into 
his seventh year.  The murder of his father and grandparents may 
even have followed on the heels of his unsuccessful Chamber of 
Secrets plot, prompted by his frustration over that debacle.  (Do 
you think temporary escape from a Muggle orphanage would have been 
difficult for him by then?  I don't.) 

While he probably sets great store by the unblockable efficiency of 
Avada Kedavra, I doubt he feels constrained to only ever use this 
method to kill people.  It is convenient for Harry, though, that 
this is what he tried to use on him; if he'd used any other type of 
common Muggle method of attack, Harry's mother's charm might not 
have protected him.

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/AuthorLinks/Barb/




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Apr  4 16:51:31 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:51:31 -0000
Subject: Class Issues in Magical Britain Re: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8hish+6159@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8i0aj+3m9n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37420

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "saintbacchus" <saintbacchus at y...> wrote:
> > Zoe Hooch wonders:
> > 
> > > I have wondered about the witches and wizards who don't go to 
> > > Hogwarts, such as Stan Shunpike or Ernie Prang on the Wizard 
bus. 
> > > There have to be a number of them who've never set foot in a 
wizard 
> > > school. I wonder how they get their training? Is there a 
parallel 
> > > track for non-academic wizards?
> > 
> > I think they must go to school. It strikes me that the wizard 
> > population isn't very large (the size of Hogwarts, Ron's comment 
that 
> > they would have "died out" if they hadn't started marrying 
Muggles), 
> > so it would be easier to get all young witches and wizards into 
> > school than it is for the general population.
> > 
> > It's also more important that they make the extra effort, since 
> > wizards have powers - whether or not they've been trained to 
control 
> > them.

I'm firmly convinced that Hogwarts cannot be the only wizarding school 
in England. First of all, Hogwarts does not in a million years have 
that 1,000 students JKR vaguely dreamed of, but more importantly, 
everyone at Hogwarts that we've seen is firmly upperclass. While 
Hogwarts takes people from all social backgrounds from the Muggle 
world, we've yet to meet a Hogwarts student from a wizarding 
background who, on investigation, does not seem to have an almost 
aristocratic background.

Draco Malfoy - 'nuff said
Pansy Parkinson - good enough for Malfoy
Pavarti Patil - knew Pansy before Hogwarts, Pansy's comments suggest 
recognized as one of themselves
Neville Longbottom - respected wizarding family
Ron Weasley - old and somewhat respected wizarding family
Ernie MacMillan - can trace his ancestry through nine generations
Cedric Diggory - Ministry father
Bartie Crouch Jr. - one of the oldest pureblood families
Goyle and Crabbe - thought good enough to associate with Malfoy
Harry Potter - JKR has confirmed that James Potter was independently 
wealthy, a good hint that the Potters were another old family, as is 
Draco's enthusiasm to make friends with Harry
Newt Scamander - his biography sounds pretty aristocratic, especially 
with the mother who bred the fancy hippogriffs

Exceptions?:

Seamus Finnegan - half and half, we don't know about his mother, but 
if I am correct, she came from the same clique who send their children 
to Hogwarts
Rubeus Hagrid - I would assume the same thing. 

Was Tom Riddle selected on his mother's membership of the aristocracy, 
or the same way that Muggle children are selected?

Other students:

There seems to be no requirement of this sort for the Muggleborns.

Colin and Dennis Creevey - milkman father
Hermione Granger - dentist parents
Justin Finch-Fletchley - down for Eton

-----------------------------------------------

The wizarding world is represented as one where everyone knows each 
other. However, on closer inspection, this is not true. People like 
Ernie Prang of Stan Shunpike we only meet when we fall out of the 
class in which Harry moves, a class to which one is admitted on basis 
of one's having attended Hogwarts. Not everyone in the Potterverse can 
work at the Ministry, and other such high profile jobs. However, 
everyone in the Hogwarts' circle does. While we do not know the 
background of countless wizarding students at Hogwarts, if we do know 
the background, it's upperclass. 

The primary difficulty with imagining Stan and Ernie at Hogwarts is 
not their brains, as has been suggested, but, and it may sound cruel 
to an audience with democratic and equalizing sensibilities, their 
accents. I am no expert in English accents, but I would stake my life 
that Ernie and Stan are represented as stereotypically lower class. 
People educated at Hogwarts do not speak in that manner. They speak 
the Queen's English. Different regional accents exist, witness 
Neville Longbottom in the celluloid-thing-that-must-not-be-named, but 
they speak "proper" English. If some students are admitted from the 
wizarding lower classes, they must soon pick it up. They would not, 
after a Hogwarts education, talk as the two learned custodians of the 
Knight Bus.

Now, to be fair, many of these Hogwarts students may not be exactly 
upper class, in the strict sense of the word. In my city they would 
be, but this is the wild West, still a little un-sophisticated in such 
things. :-) I would suspect that they might define themselves as 
middle-class. What I am getting at is "an aristocracy of education."

And, btw, this is why I think Hogwarts charges tuition.

Eileen

PS - The incredible exception is Hagrid, who speaks his own dialect, 
and cannot spell. This isn't plausible, though it makes for good comic 
relief. 




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 16:59:20 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:59:20 -0000
Subject: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8hvqb+s24g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8i0p8+u5ir@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37421

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" <zoehooch at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ComtessadeChats at c... wrote:
> 
> >   This makes me wonder how the Weasley's pay for their 
> > children's education.  Percy probably has a scholarship, but 
> > what about the rest of them?  I wonder if there is some form of 
> > financial aid?  Molly seems like the type to homeschool, if that 
> > option were available.  What about Harry?  Is the tuition coming 
> > out of his vault?

I think that if there is tuition charged, it would be on a sliding 
scale, depending upon what the family could afford.  Or it may 
merely be a nominal fee that everyone can afford (and I mean VERY 
nominal).
 
> A reminder that we have no canonical proof that tuition is charged 
> at Hogwarts. I'm of the opinion that there is no tuition at all 
> and that these charges are covered by a sizable endowment. 

Hagrid does refer to the amount they remove from Harry's vault 
as "enough for a couple o' terms."  Whether he means enough for the 
supplies Harry will need or the supplies and tuition both is 
unclear.  JKR has left wiggle room here.  However, since there are 
three terms per school year, it would be odd for this to only refer 
to his supplies, since he is presumably purchasing everything he 
will need for his entire first year.  While there's nothing in canon 
proving tuition is charged, this fragment of text makes that a 
possibility, while nothing in canon begins to hint at the endowment 
to which you refer.

--Barb






From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net  Thu Apr  4 16:52:31 2002
From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:52:31 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort's origin
In-Reply-To: <1017930934.1469.82704.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020404114245.00a72bb0@mail.fantasysales.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37422


>~~~~~Dave asked:
And was she a Slytherin? ~~~~~



Along this line, I'd like to give my thoughts on the "last Slytherin heir" 
business.

In my opinion, the reason Voldemort killed James is because he and James 
(and Harry, of course) were the last remaining Slytherin heirs. Voldemort 
wanted to be the ONLY remaining heir because (just my opinion, remember) 
there is a vast fortune involved AND there is something to do with becoming 
ruler of the world or something to the last remaining heir. That's why he 
wasn't going to kill Lily, only James and Harry, but Lily wouldn't allow 
him access to her son. I think Harry is a much more powerful wizard than 
even HE knows. Maybe he has a mental block that he hasn't surpassed yet 
but, when he finally does, it will be an awesome event. I don't think that, 
just because James or even Tom's mother were Slytherin's heirs that they 
had to be sorted into Slytherin tower.  And the same for Harry.......if my 
theory turns out to be true.


---
Kendra Grant-Bingham
~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~
"Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count."






From pennylin at swbell.net  Thu Apr  4 17:16:46 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:16:46 -0600
Subject: Percy -- Weasley/Mitford Comparisons -- Rule-Breaking -- Cho (LONG)
Message-ID: <029001c1dbfc$7fb08180$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37423

Hi everyone --

Wow!  I'm overwhelmed with all the great discussions we've been having & am sorry to be jumping in a bit late on a few things.  

PERCY: 



Mary (who also said Percy *Had* to be EVIL) said:

 

<<<<<I really havn't been able to warm to his character at all (not 
for lack of trying!) He really is very very power hungry ("Prefects 
Who Gained Power") and I don't hold up much hope for his redemption.>>>>



Being ambitious or seeking power isn't *evil* though.  Plenty of people are highly ambitious & motivated for very good reasons.  Perhaps Percy has a sweeping vision for vast reforms in the Wizarding World society if he achieves his goal of becoming Minister of Magic (I believe he intimates that he has ideas for changes at one point in the series).  Being power-hungry solely for the *status,* albeit not particularly praise-worthy, hardly constitutes *evil* though.  



As for redemption, why does Percy need to be *redeemed*?  He's not a bad, evil person.  He's a good guy with some flaws (like most of us) IMO.  

  
<<<<From his sheep like following of Crouch Sr. to his mere lack of 
ability to 'let his hair down' he really hasn't shown any ability to 
survive in the real world, let alone in a war situation.>>>>>



The ability/desire to "let one's hair down" is a prerequisite for a successful life?  Hmmm...

 

<<<<<<<The only example of Percy acting as if he is proud of a family 
member is when Ron is being praised by Dumbledore for "the best game 
of chess..." at the end of PS.>>>>>



That may be only instance where Percy shows *pride* in a family member, but it's certainly not the only instance of him showing *concern* for a family member (worried about Ginny in CoS, wades out into the Lake after the 2nd Task in GoF).



Brewpub44 said:



<<<<<<<< It doesn't matter how ambitious he is, what he is planning to do with 
his life, how seriously he takes his career at the MoM. None of that 
is really relevant to that basic question. It would be the same 
question even if he pumped gas for a living.  <snip>

 

The whole key will be *how* he is convinced to turn against the 
family. What inroads could LV or others use to make him turn against 
his own family?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



But see, I think his *ambition* is a possible inducement to turn against his family.  His ambition is in fact relevant to the question of how he would be convinced to turn against his family.  



Gwen made some great points about how the "Percy is Evil" people pick up on Percy's blind adherence to rules & abdication of independent thought & decision-making:



<<<<<<<<<<Percy, in his youthful desire to please, and his naivete, tried to
prove he was up to the tasks set before him, and got caught in a
bureaucratic nightmare because he thought he was following Crouch's
orders. I think he's about to see the kind of obfuscation and red tape
and incompetence the Ministry is capable of, and I think that will
disillusion him.>>>>>>>>>>>>>


That's my take as well.  I think he must, at the beginning of OOP, realize how differently the outcome might have been if he'd questioned things a bit more.  I don't think this means a dramatic & immediate change in Percy though.  I do think there will still be conflict for Percy as he weighs his options.  But somewhere in the back of his mind, he now has learned some lessons IMO.

RED HERRING: Barb and John both commented that it strikes them as too "pat" for Percy to be duped into unwitting betrayal of the Good Guys as a result of his ambition.  I agree.  I tend to think that Percy is meant to mislead us into this conclusion.  The subtle evidence of Percy's concern for his family points, IMO, to Percy not becoming a pawn of the Dark Side.  I think Ron's remarks are meant to set up this very thing (red herring).  But then, I have another Weasley in mind as likely candidate for becoming an unwitting pawn of the forces of Evil so ....

Amber, my fellow Percy fan, commented:

Amber:

 

<<<<<Percy's early formative years were during Voldemort's first rise. I imagine rules did rule his life then. "Don't  answer the door, don't go outside, keep your brothers from leaving, watch the babies, don't ask what is happening, DO WHAT I SAY NOW OR WE MIGHT ALL 
DIE".>>>>>>>>



I love this!  It makes so much sense ....



WEASLEY/MITFORD COMPARISONS



Milz, I loved your post comparing the two families.  I knew nothing about the Mitfords.  Can you share more about what it is about Jessica Mitford that JKR so admires?  I've never investigated & now I'm curious.



RULE-BREAKING



First, I just wanted to note that one of the Philip Nel discussion questions is on this topic, and Amy Z is scheduled to present & discuss it in about 4 weeks IIRC.  Not that we can't have discussions now, but I know Amy won't want everyone to be all talked out on this ...  <g>



Porphyria, in addition to posing lots of excellent commentary & questions, noted:



<<<<Now Hermione goes back and forth between being portrayed as shrill when 
she insists upon rules and blithely breaking them herself. The text 
notes with audible relief the point in PS/SS where "Hermione had become 
a bit more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had saved 
her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for it." But she's 
back to being a nuisance in CoS when she's the only Gryffindor (besides 
Percy) who's furious at Harry and Ron after the Anglia incident. Of 
course then she goes on to mastermind the polyjuice plot -- the point is 
that her rule-breaking usually shows her in more pleasant light.>>>>>>>>>


I think Hermione is meant to illustrate the distinction between breaking rules for good "higher" reasons & breaking them for self-gratification.  Once she has loosened up & been drawn into a friendship with Harry and Ron, Hermione becomes the Trio's conscience.  She's still quick to mention rules (disapproving of the Anglia arrival in CoS as Porphyria notes, being satisfied with Molly's howler to Ron as just desserts), but she's also perfectly capable of breaking rules and/or advocating breaking rules when there's a larger purpose (trying to learn the identity of the "person" behind the attacks in CoS).  I'd like to think about this some more actually and will definitely do so before Amy brings up this topic in a few weeks.

I also agreed with Gwen's thoughts on this topic.  

Yes, I'll definitely give this one some more thought.  This is one of the more intriguing questions about the series IMO.

CHO --

Okay, I cannot resist, even though Rita is well aware of my position:

Uncmark: "If Harry had been a little quicker and asked first, I think Cho would have accepted his invite  to the Yule Ball."

Rita: "I'm sure she would have, too.  She seemed genuinely disappointed that he asked after she had already accepted Cedric's invitation."



I maintain that she was sorry to disappoint Harry & was very kind in turning him down, but that is not at all the same thing as being sorry that she had already accepted Cedric's invitation.  It seems *highly* unlikely to me that she would have continued to date Cedric & develop a relationship with him after the Yule Ball if she were wishing, pre-Ball, that she could have been free to go with someone else (Harry).  I also think it's pretty likely that Harry just didn't notice that there was a developing (or even long-standing) relationship between Cedric & Cho prior to the Yule Ball (there's no evidence for this of course ... but we've seen that Harry doesn't always *see* everything in clear detail).  He notices them holding hands in the corridors after the Ball ... but it's at least possible this was going on beforehand but Harry only had eyes for Cho.  In any case, the Yule Ball was definitely more than a one-time date for Cedric & Cho, and it stands to reason that she had some romantic interest in him before the Ball for things to have developed as they did afterwards.  IMO of course.  :--)



Penny

 










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From heidit at netbox.com  Thu Apr  4 17:19:10 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <125.e9becc5.29ddca2e@cs.com>
Message-ID: <20020404171910.81568.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37424

> zoe said:
> 
> I have wondered about the witches and wizards who
don't go to 
> Hogwarts, such as Stan Shunpike or Ernie Prang on
the Wizard bus. 

Lisa asked: 
> Where did you get the impression that they didn't go
> to wizard school though? I got the impression that 
> Ernie is quite old, and so presumably went to school

> ages ago. Stan is about 18 years old (PoA says he 
> looks a few years older than Harry) and therefore 
> this is his first job after leaving Hogwarts, as he 
> didn't get enough NEWTs to go to the MoM or wherever
> the brightest wizards go!

There's something I've been told about education in
the UK - that a lot of students leave school after
their O-levels and go into training programs or right
into a job, rather than take 2 more years of what we
in the US call high school. Also, as I understand it,
"Seventh year" is more of an equivilent to what we in
the US learn in our first year of college, and
A-levels are something that not all students take,
even if they've stayed in school for those 2
additional years.

In other words, there may be a number of students who
attend Hogwarts for 5 years, then leave after taking
their O.W.L.s and go work in shops, or work on the
Knight Bus or contribute to wizarding society in some
other way, but don't take those final two years of
Hogwarts education, possibly because they're not
academically inclined.  That wouldn't be out of step
as a parallel, although homeschooling would be.

I don't remember where I've seen the stats, but IIRC,
homeschooling in the UK is much less common than it is
in the US. There does seem to be an implication that
it's accepted among wizards before they start at
Hogwarts (is it just me or does Draco scream "Educated
By Tutors" to anyone else?) because otherwise it's
likely that some of the younger wizards would've known
each other (although the canon evidence is mixed on
this one so if there is interest I can post for a
while on whether Pansy and Parvatti knew each other
before Hogwarts). However, there's nothing definitive
in canon that says so - and it's possible that there's
a teacher who Fire-Talks teaching to a bunch of kids
at the same time, so they learn the basics of reading,
writing and arithmatic.

--- "joanne0012" wrote:
> But we have evidence that not all wizards go to
Hogwarts -- the fact that 
> Hogwarts send out acceptance notification letters,
for one, rather than all 
> wizarding children assuming they're going there 
There are a few reasons to send the letters:
1. For kids who are wizarding, like harry, who have no
idea that they're magical or that Hogwarts exists
2. For kids like Neville who've been able to do a
smattering of magic but whose family fears that they
might be a squib ( we don't know if a squib has *no*
magic (i.e. no more that a Muggle) or whether a squib
has certain touches of magic that might protect him or
her in cases of injury or accident or illness.
Therefore, just surviving falling from a window
doesn't mean one is magical enough to actualy *do*
magic.
3. For kids who are half and half, whose magical
parent has passed, and whose living parent may not
know how to get in touch with the magical world, or
with Hogwarts in particular.
The school doesn't necesarily know 1 and 3, and
probably doesn't know for sure who falls into category
2 either - so better safe than sorry, they send all
the letters out. It's much easier to do that than to
track down each kid and ascertain whether they need
the letter, especially since they still need to send
everyone the list of books and supplies. 

I know when I started junior high & high school (not
remembering Elementary school...) we got letters in
August confirming things like the start date, and the
address of the school - of *course* we knew we'd be
attending the local school, but certain information
needs to be imparted - and why not do it in a nice
letter? It's a showing of style over substance on some
level, to be sure, but... why not?

Gretchen wrote: 
> 
> There have also been several references to Hogwarts
being the "best" 
> wizarding school.  Can it be the best if it is the
only school?  I 
> think there are probably different, less
challenging, wizard schools 
> around and Hogwarts is just for the "elite" wizards.

It certainly can be the "best" in the world if it's
the only one in England. Also, that bit about Hogwarts
being "best" was in Book 1, and we didn't even know
there were other wizarding schools until Book 4,
although certainly people on this list, and in writing
fanfic, theorised that there were. Even when I read
book one (when the only other HP book was Book 2!) I
presumed Hermione meant the best in the world, or at
least the best in Europe, not the best on the British
Isles. 

heidi 
Follow me to FictionAlley.org - fanfic of all shapes,
sizes & SHIPs
http://www.fictionalley.org

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From dicentra at xmission.com  Thu Apr  4 17:18:56 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:18:56 -0000
Subject: Inish Alley database
Message-ID: <a8i1u0+46fq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37425

For those of you awash in the sea of HPfGU acronyms, HPfGU provides
Inish Alley, a repository of acronyms that have been invented on this
list (and a few that haven't). You can find it by clicking on the link
below, or you can go to Web view, click "Database" in the menu on the
left, and go to the last database on the list.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=13

The database is searchable, so if you want to find all the acronyms
associated with Snape, put "snape" in the search engine and you'll get
them all. You are also welcome to add acronyms as they appear in this
list; just make sure you fill in all the information correctly.

It's also fun to just page through it: some of the acronyms are a
scream even out of context.

Have fun and enjoy the buffet.

--Dicey, the Acronym Elf




From pennylin at swbell.net  Thu Apr  4 17:21:43 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:21:43 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do all wizards go to school?
References: <a8hvqb+s24g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <029d01c1dbfd$30fed360$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37426

Hi --

Zoehooch noted:

<<<<<<<<A reminder that we have no canonical proof that tuition is charged at Hogwarts. I'm of the opinion that there is no tuition at all and that 
these charges are covered by a sizable endowment.>>>>>>>>>>

What about room & board though?  Surely there must be something other than books, clothes & supplies that students must purchase or else the Weasleys wouldn't be in such dire straits all the time (one wouldn't think).  

To see what else has been discussed on this topic, take a look at the Hogwarts FAQ at:

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hogwarts.html

Penny


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 17:19:52 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:19:52 -0000
Subject: Class Issues in Magical Britain Re: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8i0aj+3m9n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8i1vo+fctu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37427

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> The wizarding world is represented as one where everyone knows 
> each other. However, on closer inspection, this is not true. 
> People like Ernie Prang of Stan Shunpike we only meet when we fall 
> out of the class in which Harry moves, a class to which one is 
> admitted on basis of one's having attended Hogwarts. Not everyone 
> in the Potterverse can work at the Ministry, and other such high 
> profile jobs. However, everyone in the Hogwarts' circle does. 
> While we do not know the background of countless wizarding 
> students at Hogwarts, if we do know the background, it's 
> upperclass. 

Classifying the Weasleys as "upperclass" merely because they are a 
wizarding family mystifies me.  It is obvious that true "upperclass" 
wizarding families like the Malfoys look down on them.  And Ron, 
Fred and George (not Percy, who has social-climbing aspirations) use 
slang that is decidedly not upperclass.  We really don't know enough 
about most of the other students to generalize in this way.  I see 
no reason for the Hogwarts student body not to represent a broad 
cross-section of wizarding society.

> The primary difficulty with imagining Stan and Ernie at Hogwarts 
> is not their brains, as has been suggested, but, and it may sound 
> cruel to an audience with democratic and equalizing sensibilities, 
> their accents. I am no expert in English accents, but I would 
> stake my life that Ernie and Stan are represented as 
> stereotypically lower class. People educated at Hogwarts do not 
> speak in that manner. They speak the Queen's English. Different 
> regional accents exist, witness Neville Longbottom in the 
> celluloid-thing-that-must-not-be-named, but they speak "proper" 
> English. If some students are admitted from the wizarding lower 
> classes, they must soon pick it up. They would not, after a 
> Hogwarts education, talk as the two learned custodians of the 
> Knight Bus.

What proof do you have that Stan and Ernie are from wizarding 
families?  If they are Muggle-born, from, say, the East End of 
London, that would explain their accents and the fact that they have 
retained them, since they would have been back with their families 
during school holidays.  The wizarding world, being sheltered as it 
is, may have something of its own accent which is a kind of generic 
British accent, cutting across regional lines as the British 
wizarding world does.  Students from a certain class of wizarding 
family would therefore always be exposed to the same sort of speech, 
while poorer wizarding families and Muggle-born students would be 
exposed to the speech in the Muggle world (whichever corner of it 
they live in) until the age of eleven, and whenever the return home 
to visit after that.  They would be unlikely to lose their original 
accents unless they made a concerted effort to change, and even if 
they changed, it might come out at odd times.  (My mother-in-law rid 
herself of her Texas accent, but it comes roaring back when she's on 
the phone with relatives in the panhandle.)
 
> And, btw, this is why I think Hogwarts charges tuition.

I'm unclear how this is a pro-tuition argument; I came to the same 
conclusion by a different route.  I do believe, however, that there 
are no more than 300 students at Hogwarts and it is the only 
wizarding school in the British Isles.  

> PS - The incredible exception is Hagrid, who speaks his own 
> dialect, and cannot spell. This isn't plausible, though it makes 
> for good comic relief.

Hagrid's accent is indeed odd, because he presumably grew up in the 
wizarding world (I think Muggles would have noticed such a large 
child and wondered about him).  Given his size, he may have been 
isolated from others and exposed only to his father's accent.  If 
one of his father's parents had this accent, that would explain how 
he learned it.  

I am reminded of the character of the maid and her brother in "The 
Secret Garden" who had similar accents, and the brother was also 
outdoorsy; perhaps this is another way for JKR to draw class 
distinctions and yet also paint Hagrid as the wild but gentle savage 
who befriends Harry, as the maid and brother do with the heroine 
of "Secret Garden."  (Although I see Hagrid as more of a "Falstaff" 
figure; that's another story...)

--Barb





From dicentra at xmission.com  Thu Apr  4 17:32:43 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:32:43 -0000
Subject: Voldy's mum
In-Reply-To: <a8i01l+o279@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8i2nr+va13@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37428

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
  This was a sudden death, and as a 
> witch she would probably not expect to die in childbirth; she would 
> probably have been going to a competent witch-midwife, who would be 
> able to prevent a such a death.  I think the fact that she died in 
> childbirth is something that heavily supports her having given birth 
> in a Muggle environment and unexpectedly.  When would she have time 
> to write a letter, let alone TWO letters?  And while she's doing all 
> this correspondence, why not assign a guardian to the child?  But 
> she did not; her death was a complete surprise to her, IMHO.
> 

And here I have to wonder if it was "just one of those things" or if
her death might not have been helped along. Isn't it possible that
someone knew who her son would become? Could Sybll Trelawny have been
alive then (though young) and made THAT prediction? Perhaps there was
a bungled attempt to kill Tom and his mother got it instead.

--Dicentra




From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 17:16:17 2002
From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:16:17 -0000
Subject: Class Issues in Magical Britain Re: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8i0aj+3m9n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8i1p1+pcl1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37429

--- >.
> 
> Eileen
> 
> PS - The incredible exception is Hagrid, who speaks his own 
dialect, 
> and cannot spell. This isn't plausible, though it makes for good 
comic 
> relief.

In response to your PS, Eileen, perhaps Hagrid fits your profile, we 
don't know much about his background yet, but, he did not finish his 
schooling and has the education of a 14 year old.  That could explain 
his poor speaking and spelling.

Gretchen





From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  4 18:01:07 2002
From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:01:07 -0000
Subject: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8hish+6159@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8i4d3+7sm5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37430

> > Zoe Hooch wrote:
> > 
> > > I have wondered about the witches and wizards who don't go to 
> > > Hogwarts, such as Stan Shunpike or Ernie Prang on the Wizard 
bus...

I don't think Stan did go to Hogwarts, for the simple reason that if 
he is only a few years older than Harry (about 18) then he would have 
seen Harry in his first year at Hogwarts at least. 

Maybe some kids go to school in another country or get taught at home.

Rosie

http://magic-hogwarts.com






From gwynyth at drizzle.com  Thu Apr  4 18:01:30 2002
From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:01:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8i0p8+u5ir@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204040938480.18496-100000@drizzle.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37431

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, blpurdom wrote:

> Hagrid does refer to the amount they remove from Harry's vault 
> as "enough for a couple o' terms."  Whether he means enough for the 
> supplies Harry will need or the supplies and tuition both is 
> unclear.  JKR has left wiggle room here.  However, since there are 
> three terms per school year, it would be odd for this to only refer 
> to his supplies, since he is presumably purchasing everything he 
> will need for his entire first year.  While there's nothing in canon 
> proving tuition is charged, this fragment of text makes that a 
> possibility, while nothing in canon begins to hint at the endowment 
> to which you refer.

Ironically, it's the scene you reference that convinces me that whether or 
not students in general pay money to Hogwarts (I'm actually also inclined 
to the 'endowment or some other means of paying' version, though I agree 
that there's nothing in canon to date that says what's going on for 
certain), the money Harry takes out in that scene is *only* for spending 
money and beginning of year equipment expenses.

Hagrid's comments to Harry have always struck me the way my mother's
comments to me worked before starting the school year, both at the two
years of boarding school and my college years. Which was, more or less
"Here's a check for your spending money for the year." 

Because, see, Hagrid *doesn't* say anything like "We'll need to save this
amount of it for tuition." or "When you get to school, you'll need to give
this pouch to <name>" or take some and say "I'll take care of paying your
bills there." or anything like that. There's nothing like that in there.
Just the fact that they need some money for supplies and such, and that
there'll be some left over when they're done, and that he won't need to
make a trip until next summer, probably.

(Though, granted, the opportunities to spend money at Hogwarts seem sort
of limited until 3rd year - food on the train, and owl-order, and asking
older students to get things in Hogsmeade until you can go yourself.)

So, I think it doesn't make sense to assume that Harry is paying tuition. 
I think there are bits of dialogue or comments or *something* that would 
be there if he did. (Or at least, if Rowling considered it important, 
which is a whole other issue)

However, there are a few other options. One is that *other* students pay 
tuition, and that Harry doesn't for some reason. 

This might be because that's already been dealt with by his parents'
estate/executors/whoever.  It might be that his parents put down money as
soon as he was born (since children's names go down in the acceptance book
when they're born, according to various sources), and that account has
multiplied suitably.  It might also be that Hogwarts has a general policy
of offering full scholarships (regardless of need) to students whose
parents were killed by Voldemort. (As some colleges were making noises
about post 9/11)

But I personally think that these reasons (while fitting the available 
facts and being things that are done in the Real World and which therefore 
fit practical considerations) aren't what's going on either. (Again, 
personal opinion)

The reason I think that there's no tuition involved is that it seems like 
Harry gets a very standard letter (certainly the one he finally reads is 
not noticeably thinner than the ones he *didn't* read. 

And there's no mention of tuition in there. At all. Just the needed 
equipment/required stuff, and the place and time to meet the train. 

Now, if Harry were to get a personalised letter (meaning that if for some 
reason, his tuition were already taken care of by some other means), you'd 
think that it would include something about how to deal with the 
Dursley's, a note that Hagrid will be seeing to his buying stuff, or 
whatever. Or even just plain, a "We're delighted to welcome you back to 
the wizarding world." 

All of which seems to indicate that Harry *does* get a standard letter,
and that whatever financial arrangements are made, they're not referred to
at all in that. 

And I don't know about other schools, but the three I've gone to (boarding 
school, college, graduate school, the last of which I've been dealing with 
the tuition bills myself...) don't send you a letter saying "Hey, you got 
in..." and then separately send the financial stuff without mentioning it. 

They've sent letters saying "Congratulations, you've been accepted at..." 
and "To let us know you'll be attending, return this card." and "Financial 
information is included in this packet" or "Financial information will be 
following in a separate letter." But they say *something* about it. 

All of which adds up in *my* brain as "There isn't direct tuition or room 
and board type payments involved here." I agree that canon isn't clear on 
this point, but I think that my reasoning is no less possible or likely 
than other reasonings. 

-Jenett




From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Thu Apr  4 18:13:54 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:13:54 -0000
Subject: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8i4d3+7sm5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8i552+7suv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37432

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "flower_fairy12" <graceofmyheart at h...> wrote:
> I don't think Stan did go to Hogwarts, for the simple reason that if
> he is only a few years older than Harry (about 18) then he would have
> seen Harry in his first year at Hogwarts at least.


Several things on this one.

First, Stan may have gone to Hogwarts, graduated in Harry's first or
second year, and Harry still may not have ahad any reason to notice
him. If Stan was in a different house (we're guessing Hufflepuff) and
at least 5 years older than Harry, why would Harry have seen him among
the sea of other students (250 or 1000, if you don't have contact, you
don't have contact)?

Second, Stan may have gone to Hogwarts, but not every student may stay
for NEWTs. If a student isn't planning to try for a difficult job, and
especially if there is no higher education (Rowling says there isn't),
and furthermore with the more old-fashioned culture of the wizarding
world, it's entirely possible that many students leave after their 5th
year and their OWLs. "Ordinary Wizarding Levels" sound a lot more like
comprehensive low-level exams than "Nastily Exhausting Wizarding
Tests." So it's possible Stan left before Harry arrived, if only just.

Third, Stan could have finished out a full 7 years and Harry may just
be underestimating his age by a year or two.

And fourth, it's possible that only a certain number of wizard kids
attend school, and others who are less magical go through some type of
guild training--apprenticing and then becoming a journeyman labourer
in their field. Stan may be a journeyman on the Night Bus, and he'll
take over driving when Ernie shuffles off his mortal coil.

Gwendolyn Grace




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Apr  4 18:26:15 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:26:15 -0000
Subject: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8i552+7suv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8i5s7+5t15@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37433

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gwendolyngrace" <lee_hillman at u...> wrote:

> First, Stan may have gone to Hogwarts, graduated in Harry's first or
> second year, and Harry still may not have ahad any reason to notice
> him. If Stan was in a different house (we're guessing Hufflepuff)
and
> at least 5 years older than Harry, why would Harry have seen him
among
> the sea of other students (250 or 1000, if you don't have contact,
you
> don't have contact)?

I can easily believe that Harry may never have seen Stan.  But I have
trouble believing that Stan wouldn't have noticed Harry, who is, after
all, a major celebrity and a Quidditch star.  Yet he didn't recognize
Harry when Harry got on the bus.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Apr  4 18:26:43 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:26:43 -0000
Subject: On following rules
In-Reply-To: <3637CC69-47BB-11D6-B637-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a8i5t3+fe3i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37434

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:

> So, questions:
> Is the horror of Law and rule-abiding in the books justified? Do 
the  books teach common-sense over blind following of rules, or 
do they  promote a dangerous distrust of proper authority 
figures?

After reading the excellent _How the Scots Invented the Modern 
World_ by Arthur Herman I had a much better understanding of 
what JKR is getting at. JKR's ideas about rules are very Scottish: 
society needs rules  *and* it needs people who are willing to 
break rules. 

> What do you think JKR's deal is with rules and rule-breaking? 
Is being a  stickler for rules seen as a pathology? A symptom of 
a traumatized  personality? Something to outgrow and get over? 
When is it ever a good idea?<<

Rules are seen as unpleasant (at least from the point of view of 
an adventurous teenage boy) but necessary. The alternative, a 
society without rules, is not given serious consideration. It is 
clear that Rowling is not advocating a society where the Twins 
can do as they please, or where all children are raised to be like 
Dudley. The Sorting Hat says that their chivalry sets Gryffindors 
apart. The Gryffindors, then, acknowledge a chivalric code, in 
contrast to the Slytherins, who will do anything to achieve their 
ends.

Rowling  does show that  the rules themselves or the people 
who enforce them may be flawed. Rowling's most logical 
character, Snape,  is the most easily blinded by passion, and the 
most even-handed,  McGonagall, is the first to bend a rule to 
help Gryffindor House. 

> 
> When are characters punished or rewarded for rule breaking? 
What does  this mean?
> 

The philosophers of the Scottish enlightenment believed that 
people have common sense and can be trained to use it, a 
philosophy Rowling seems to share.  Generally, when Harry or 
his friends break the rules for a selfish reason, they are 
punished, either by being caught or by suffering some 
catastrophe. Hermione's stolen potion ingredients turn her into a 
cat creature, for example. She drugs Crabbe and Goyle and is 
later Petrified herself. Nothing comes of Harry's first excursion to 
Hogsmeade, but when he does it again, he loses the cloak 
*and* the map.  Harry is allowed to make mistakes, so that he, 
and we, can learn from them.

Pippin
 






From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Apr  4 18:32:49 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:32:49 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape:  Vampire vs. Dementor
Message-ID: <169.b899824.29ddf651@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37435

Cindy wrote:> 
> So, you see, Snape-As-Part-Dementor is unassailable.  It's 
> canonical.  It's rather Bangy.  It's, uh, tremendously unpopular.  
> What's not to like?  :-)


I'm so glad that my question enabled Cindy to roll out her really excellent 
Snape-As-Part-Dementor theory in all its expanded glory. I really love this 
theory. I don't buy it, but I do love it. It works, doesn't it? And as the 
lady says, it's *canonical*.

My biggest problem with it, as one of those who take a somewhat sadistic 
delight in burdening their beloved Severus' soul with angst, is that, 
presumably, the less soul, the less angst. Can our Severus suffer the mental 
torments we like to think he does if part of that soul has been sucked out by 
one of those nasty Dementors? Obviously though, that doesn't invalidate 
Cindy's theory.

On the other hand, now that Porphyria has scotched (unintentional pun, my 
dear!) the notion of Snape being an insomniac (glares meaningfully at 
Porphyria who is undoubtedly and irritatingly right), it would answer my 
question of how he possibly has the gall to sleep soundly in his bed after 
all the things he's seen and done .

You give his failure to save Crouch Jr from the Dementor as evidence that he 
was unable to produce a patronus. I've never had any concerns over his (and 
McGonagall's) failure here. They would have been directly countermanding the 
Minister for Magic, which although in the circumstances justified, they had 
no authority to do. In PoA, Dumbledore himself says he is powerless to do 
this. In addition, it sounds to me as though the two of them weren't 
expecting the Dementor to perform the kiss, just be there as protection for 
Fudge, so that they were taken by surprise and unable to summon a patronus 
(or two) before the Dementor acted.

But to get back to my original question, about Dementors and hydrophobia, I 
was simply wondering if there was something I had missed in this connection? 
A little canon, perhaps? You see, my only recollection of anything about 
Dementors and water is that they came out in the rain to invade the Quidditch 
pitch, which rather implies that they don't mind water. I take your point 
that the hydrophobia is optional, but the argument at the moment seems to be 
a bit circular, doesn't it?

Actually, I think hydrophobia and potions would be very hard to mix. Unless 
there is a wizarding equivalent of latex gloves (I doubt dragon hide is 
suitable for fine work), Snape's hands must constantly be in touch with 
noxious substances, so that I would have thought that he would have been 
constantly washing them. Unless, of course he can magically cleanse them. But 
that takes us straight back to why he doesn't do the same for his hair. Oh 
dear, I didn't really want to end up back here!

Oh well, having got here...On a practical and therefore probably irrelevant 
point, I remember once seeing an experiment on television, where they showed 
that if one *never* washes one's hair, it tends to reach an equilibrium and 
in fact isn't greasy. Apparently, it the washing that upsets this. So perhaps 
he *does* wash it once a week or something, but the net effect is that it's 
usually greasy. As one who has to wash her hair at least every other day, I 
haven't had the nerve to try. It was bad enough when I was a child and my 
mother wouldn't let me wash it more than once a week. Yuk!

Eloise (who's also invested in some exta-whitening toothpaste since joining 
this list! )



From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Apr  4 18:46:50 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:46:50 -0000
Subject: Snape:  Vampire vs. Dementor
In-Reply-To: <a8gufg+5ci2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8i72q+48r7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37436

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> Eloise asked:

> You want *more* canon?  Boy, this is a tough crowd.  Well, OK.  One 
> troubling thing about GoF is that the dementor sucks out Crouch
Jr.'s 
> soul, and Snape does not conjure a patronus to prevent this.  Snape 
> seems to have been quite talented at Dark Arts, having arrived at 
> Hogwarts knowing quite a number of curses.  Yet Snape doesn't ward 
> off the dementor, even though Snape should appreciate the importance 
> of keeping Crouch Jr. alive to give testimony.  And why is that?  
> Because Snape *can't* conjure a patronus because he's half-dementor; 
> it would finish him for sure.  

So is McGonagall half-dementor, too?  She didn't conjure one either.
;-)

My theory is that Snape can't conjure a patronus because he can't
dredge up a sufficiently happy memory (<sob>just breaks your heart,
don't it?).  Of course, that still leaves the problem of McGonagall...

No, as superbly original as SLAPDASH is, I think I'll stick with
D.A.R.T.H.S.N.A.P.E: Dark, Angry, Resentful, Totally Human Severus --
Normal Angst is Plenty Enough.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From siskiou at earthlink.net  Thu Apr  4 18:51:41 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:51:41 -0800
Subject: Hermione and the Polyjuice potion, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Percy -- Weasley/Mitford Comparisons -- Rule-Breaking -- Cho (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <029001c1dbfc$7fb08180$bd26fea9@default>
References: <029001c1dbfc$7fb08180$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <16169625096.20020404105141@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37437



Hi,

Thursday, April 04, 2002, 9:16:46 AM, Penny wrote:

>  but she's also perfectly capable of breaking rules
> and/or advocating breaking rules when there's a larger purpose (trying
> to learn the identity of the "person" behind the attacks in CoS).

An I the only one who had the feeling that Hermione had some
ulterior motive, besides wanting to find out who was behind
the attacks?

Her whole behavior made me think she really, really wanted
to try out the Polyjuice potion, and not just to be helpful.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From kerelsen at quik.com  Thu Apr  4 19:39:26 2002
From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:39:26 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do all wizards go to school?
References: <a8i5s7+5t15@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00fd01c1dc10$6f7c7760$1421b0d8@kerelsen>

No: HPFGUIDX 37438


----- Original Message -----
From: "marinafrants" <rusalka at ix.netcom.com>
> I can easily believe that Harry may never have seen Stan.  But
I have
> trouble believing that Stan wouldn't have noticed Harry, who
is, after
> all, a major celebrity and a Quidditch star.  Yet he didn't
recognize
> Harry when Harry got on the bus.

Well, perhaps Harry didn't match up with Stan's internal image of
what THE BOY WHO LIVED looked like.  True, Harry is famous, but
we really don't have much indication that there are many accurate
wizardly photos of him out there... in fact, the one that Colin
took (the one with Lockhart) has Harry trying to escape the
picture!  So, considering the situation Harry is in, and the fact
that in his muggle clothes he doesn't necessarily look like a
wizard, I could see Stan not realizing his identity.  And Harry
WAS trying to avoid being seen for who he really was.

Bernadette

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).






From midgiecat at aol.com  Thu Apr  4 19:37:08 2002
From: midgiecat at aol.com (midgiecat at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:37:08 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1783
Message-ID: <a4.23dbe1c4.29de0564@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37439

I have a question I'd like to post.  It regards the beginning of GOF.  When 
the narrator is giving the history of the Riddle house and the end of the 
family, it was written that "all three were just laying there" or something 
of the sort.  I know that one body was Tom's father, but who were the other 
two ....Tom Riddle's grandparents, or was Tom's father remarried and did he 
then have a child?

brenda the brave, coming out of hiding


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lucy at luphen.co.uk  Thu Apr  4 20:29:56 2002
From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:29:56 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do all wizards go to school?
References: <20020404171910.81568.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <027701c1dc17$7e9a8960$5caf1e3e@stephen>

No: HPFGUIDX 37440

>> zoe said:
> 
> I have wondered about the witches and wizards who
don't go to 
> Hogwarts, such as Stan Shunpike or Ernie Prang on
the Wizard bus. 

>Lisa asked: 
>> Where did you get the impression that they didn't go
> to wizard school though? I got the impression that 
> Ernie is quite old, and so presumably went to school

>> ages ago. Stan is about 18 years old (PoA says he 
> looks a few years older than Harry) and therefore 
> this is his first job after leaving Hogwarts, as he 
> didn't get enough NEWTs to go to the MoM or wherever
> the brightest wizards go!

Oh dear, another name change. I'm Lucy, not Lisa!!

(sniff sniff)

Lucy the Drifty

:-)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lucy at luphen.co.uk  Thu Apr  4 20:34:23 2002
From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:34:23 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] That's an interesting theory
References: <F171gl4rhYQYx3G5aYY0001ad66@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <02a701c1dc18$1b3887e0$5caf1e3e@stephen>

No: HPFGUIDX 37441

>>From: kellybroughton at netscape.net
>>The possibility of a missing child is very intriguing.... but there may be 
>>yet another explanation: the Weasleys just didn't want to have any more 
>>babies with Voldemort running around.

>The only real problem with this theory is that Ron is several months younger 
than Harry, thus Voldemort very likely wasn't just running around, he may 
well have been at the height of his power. We don't know Ginny's birthday, 
but she's at least six months younger than Harry, but even with a late 
birthday, she had to have been born before Harry defeated LV the first time, 
otherwise she'd be two years behind him in school, as Harry was fifteen 
months old when LV was defeated. This says nothing about Fred or George, who 
may well have been born into troubled times as well...do we have any canon 
about when LV started to raise his big stink?

J


At the risk of reopening the age debate, I must say I still think it extremely unlikely that anyone is younger than Harry in his year. As a July 21st birthday, I was ALWAYS the youngest in my year, and someone with a July 31st birthday would almost certainly find that he was also the youngest. I think Ron is several months older, not younger.

Lucy the Drifty

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  4 20:51:34 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:51:34 -0000
Subject: What did Tom know and when did he know it? (was: Voldy's mum)
In-Reply-To: <a8i01l+o279@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8iecm+j00a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37442



In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> wrote:
> > I also imagine that enclosed in it would be another letter to be 
> > kept for her child. In this letter she would reveal child's magic 
> > origin, it's illustrious ancestry and, most importantly, it's 
> > abandonment by a Muggle father. I think that Tom Riddle knew at 
> > quite an early age (because of such a letter) of his family 
> > history. 
> 
> Somehow this seems unlikely.  This was a sudden death, and as a 
> witch she would probably not expect to die in childbirth; she would 
> probably have been going to a competent witch-midwife, who would be 
> able to prevent a such a death.  I think the fact that she died in 
> childbirth is something that heavily supports her having given 
birth 
> in a Muggle environment and unexpectedly.  When would she have time 
> to write a letter, let alone TWO letters?  And while she's doing 
all 
> this correspondence, why not assign a guardian to the child?  But 
> she did not; her death was a complete surprise to her, IMHO.
> 

In my  original post, I had actually written, and then deleted, a  
line saying "after all, she had nine months for preparations".  
We really don't know anything about the circumstances of her life. 
Maybe she knew she would have to give labour in a Muggle environment? 
Also, we don't really know whether the WW has foolproof methods of 
midwivery (is that a word?).  Maybe even with magic there is some 
measure of risk involved. Knowing that if she dies, her child may not 
have access to sources of information regarding himself and his 
family history, it seems highly reasonable to me that she would 
prepare against such an eventuality.  
I agree that if this is true, it is strange that Tom grew up in an 
orphanage rather than with a guardian. However, it is possible that 
she either had no one to assign as a guardian or that the person she 
did assign refused the guardianship.
While writing this, it also occurs to me that her own family may have 
cast her out because of her alliance with a Muggle. Maybe it was they 
who refused to take care of a "Mudblood" grandchild.


> > As a neglected and unloved child at the orphanage, the 
narcissitic 
> > fantasy of hidden greatness (which such children often develop) 
> > would be nourished by knowing himslef to be Slytherin's only 
> > direct heir. 
> 
> While Tom Riddle may very well have had fantasies of being an 
> important person and the heir of an important person while living 
in 
> the orphanage (this very common fairy tale theme is the kind of 
> fantasy that is, after all, at the center of the Harry Potter 
> stories--Harry the orphan learns he is a wizard and responsible for 
> the downfall of a formidible dark wizard, etc., etc.) I doubt he 
> would have needed knowledge of his background to nourish this kind 
> of fantasy, and he probably didn't learn of his background until he 
> went to Hogwarts. 


This is all pure speculation, of course, but I do think that if Tom 
Riddle had learned of his background at a later age (say sixteen?), 
he wouldn't have reacted in the way he did. 
I'm not sure I can explain this very well, but his fantastic hatred  
feel deeply rooted in long childhood abuse and neglect.  As if he 
channelled the abuse he suffered at the orphanage into building up a 
completely hateful father image. The hatred - planning what he would 
do to his father once he was grown up - might have been his main 
solace there.
It doesn't seem to me psychologically sound that he would need to 
construct this father image at a later age, especially if you 
consider that he was at Hogwars at the time -  successful, well-liked 
and finding great powers. (I don't mean by this that he wouldn't have 
become evil, by the way, but that his "evilness" wouldn't have been 
focused on his father and, by extension, on Mudbloods and Muggles.)

>snip>

> > I see him as heading straight to the Riddle manor immediately 
> > after graduation. That would make killing his father the first 
act 
> > he has ever done as an adult (and a fully qualified wizard). If 
> > so, it might very well have been the first time that he had used 
> > Avada Kedavra on a human being. He had probably experimented on 
> > animals, but would save it up, so to speak, to use for the first 
> > time on his filth of a father (truly a "mudblood"). 
> 
> While this may have been his first act after finishing school, it 
> was hardly his first time attacking those with "unclean" blood.  
> (And his father was a Muggle, not a Mudblood, who is a Muggle-born 
> witch or wizard).  When he was sixteen he was responsible for 
> opening the Chamber of Secrets, releasing a basilisk for the 
purpose 
> of "cleansing" the school of Muggle-borns 

True, but he didn't use Avada Kedavra on them (as far as we know). 
The AK curse is something special in the WW. I'm not sure why, but it 
is. Riddle attacked, even caused the death of other people (Myrtle), 
but it makes psychological sense that he used AK for the first time 
on his father. 
As for "mudbloodiness" - what makes a wizard a Mudblood is the 
"contamination" with Muggle blood. So, I would assume that Muggles, 
although not termed Mudbloods, are certainly considered as such by 
the WW racists. Remember how Lucius sneers at Arthur (and Dumbledore) 
for being "Muggle lovers" and "Mudblood lovers"? How he looks at 
Hermione's Muggle parents? My understanding is that for people such 
as Lucius, Muggles are what puts the Mud in the Mudblood.


> > This first murder, by the way, not only symbolizes liberation and 
> > victory over the father but also rebellion against ALL authority. 
> > By performing AK as the very first act in adulthood, he puts 
> > himself (in fact and symbolically) in absolute and inherent 
> > opposition to the ruling norms that he had seemingly complied 
with 
> > until then.
> 
> As noted above, this wasn't his first murder; he was already in 
> opposition to the "ruling norms," although, as you noted, he did 
> SEEM to comply with them.  Another way he managed to "attack" a 
> person of "unclean" blood is by framing Hagrid, who was expelled. 
> (Hagrid is a mix of giant and wizarding blood.)  So he didn't feel 
> the need to wait for the end of his seventh year to do this. 

I don't think it's about needing to wait, but about treating himself 
to a graduation present (or party). Fulfilling the promise he had 
made to himself as a child - "when I grow up...". 
He has killed before, he has proabably committed many crimes, but 
this is something special - this is using AK - on his FATHER. It's a 
tremendously symbolic gesture - on both counts.
AK is THE killing curse and is absolutely banned. In fact, it reminds 
me of a taboo. To use AK, then, is to violate some basic ethical norm 
of the WW. So Tom Riddle is both a patricide (violating one common 
human taboo) and uses AK (violating a second, specifically wizard, 
taboo). He breaks loose - decisively and with no way back - from all 
binds of accepted law and morality. 


Naama





From gwynyth at drizzle.com  Thu Apr  4 20:57:49 2002
From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:57:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] That's an interesting theory
In-Reply-To: <02a701c1dc18$1b3887e0$5caf1e3e@stephen>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204041246330.6151-100000@drizzle.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37443

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Lucy Austin wrote:
> At the risk of reopening the age debate, I must say I still think it
> extremely unlikely that anyone is younger than Harry in his year. As a
> July 21st birthday, I was ALWAYS the youngest in my year, and someone
> with a July 31st birthday would almost certainly find that he was also
> the youngest. I think Ron is several months older, not younger.

Mileage varies on this one: My birthday is September 22nd, and I was in a 
school district with an October cut-off more or less. I was *always* the 
youngest in my class, but even in my quite-small elementary classes (17 or 
18 kids for most of my elementary school years) there were usually at 
least a couple of people with birthdays in August and September. 

One thing to note is that in a school where you have summers off, you 
might not actually *notice* when someone's birthday is if it's not in the 
school year - I know it annoyed my much older sister (whose birthday was 
in July) that she could never have a party with her friends, because my 
parents had a small summer cottage they went to about a thousand miles 
away from where we lived. 

And I know my own birthday often got ignored - even in classrooms with
"It's X's birthday" sorts of things and events, those things usually
weren't organised in time for my birthday if they happened at all, and so
classmates who weren't invited to a party (I know a couple of years, I had
very small parties and invited other people than classmates)  might not
have known.

-Jenett




From m.bockermann at t-online.de  Thu Apr  4 20:40:07 2002
From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 22:40:07 +0200
Subject: Molly and Missing Weasley
References: <1017911708.11129.36295.m10@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <000201c1dc19$0bef2680$221ce23e@i7p8l9>

No: HPFGUIDX 37444

Eileen wrote:
"The terror it inspired ... you have no idea, you're too young. Just
picture coming home, and finding the Dark Mark hovering over your
house, and knowing what you're about to find inside ..." Mr. Weasley
winced. 'Everyone's worst fear ... the very worst ..."
"There was silence for a moment."
Missing Weasley children anyone?


Me:
There is even more to support the Missing Weasley theory. And it is the very
next scene after the end of "The Dark Mark" in GoF: it is in the chapter
"Mayhem at the Ministry".

The first time I read "The Dark Mark", I couldn't understand Molly's
reaction at all. (The first time, I was reading the German translation
where - IMHO - the ambiguity of the end of "The Dark Mark" gets lots in an
inaccurate translation). The scene seemed totally exagerrated and out of
character. This is a mother of seven children, I thought. With that many
children, at least one should always be in trouble, ill or something like
this. As much as I adore JKR, I thought the scene was below her usual
standard. Well, it happens to the best I thought, and moved on to the next
where everything was again in order.

But the scene takes on a totally different, hackle raising quality if you
consider the possibility of a dead Weasley child. Rita wrote in her article
(GoF, 165): "The Ministry official emerged some time after the appearance of
the Dark Mark, alleging that nobody had been hurt, but refusing to give any
more information. Wether this statement will be enough to quash the rumours
that several bodies were removed from the woods an hour later, remains to be
seen."

This is what Molly reads about the World cup: there has been the Dark Mark
and probably bodies. And then she freaks. She waits before the house for
them to come home. When her husband and children turn round the corner, she
cries out, runsto them with a pale face and red eyes and with her bathroom
slippers still on. She embraces the twins with whom she had argued before
the cup ... having dreaded the possibility that they had died and that she
wouldn't have a chance to make amends. She is actually sobbing. Her husband
has to soothe her and prise her from the twins. Hermione has to make her tea
and Arthur adds a shot of whiskey.

After reading the article one would expect some anxiety... but to this
degree? I don't think that this is foreshadowing or simply Molly's nerves.
>From what we have seen, Molly is a strong person who handles a lot of
responsibility and masters it superbly. She is described as a friendly
person, very loving who cares deeply for her family. But she has a temper,
too, as can been seen in her arguments with the twins. That speaks of an
inner fierceness. Such is not a person who would freak easily or without
reason.

Molly says something that is intriguing: "What if You-Know-Who had got you,
and the last thing that I ever said to you is that you didn't get enough
O.W.L.s?" The chain of thought: Dark Mark -> You-Know-Who -> death is as
strongly present and vivid in her mind in her than in those of her
husband's. That speaks of a conditioning that runs deeper than hear-say or
compassion with another victim's families. It reeks of personal experience.
I daresay that Molly has been there before, has lost a child this way: with
a Dark Mark hovering over their house upon their return.

Also note, that Arthur tries to reach Molly early: he wakes up the children
after only a couple of hours sleep and has a "hurried discussion" with
Basil, the keeper of the portkeyes. I believe he hopes to reach Molly before
the news can reach her - and fails.

What do you think, ye supporters and attackers of the Missing Weasley
theory?

Greetings,
Barbara Jebenstreit




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Thu Apr  4 21:18:30 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:18:30 -0500
Subject: Rules in HP
Message-ID: <09D34F05.245A8D0B.6E93A4F5@netscape.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37445

Porphyria wrote:

> Is the horror of Law and rule-abiding in the books justified? Do the books teach common-sense over blind following of rules, or to they promote a dangerous distrust of proper authority figures?

I'm not sure that the horror of rules is as strong in the books as you make out.  I think there are three reasons that people follow rules in general:

because Rules are Good and Must Be Obeyed;
because they are supported by a system of rewards and punishments;
because in the big picture each rule has a reason for being there, and breaking it will lead to undesirable or even catastrophic consequences.

My view is that Percy is portrayed as being influenced by the first reason, but much of this has to do with the fact that we mostly see his interaction with Ron and the twins.  It does go further, as when he insinuates Arthur shouldn't have spoken after the World Cup, but it need not be the whole story.

I believe that it is easy to think that the overthrow of the first or second motivations above must lead to a view that rule-breaking is to be encouraged, but this is not really the case.

Hermione seems at the beginning of the series to be influenced by both the first and the second reasons, but she matures rapidly and adopts the attitude that rules are there for a reason.  I also think that this is the view that JKR is leading us to adopt, too.  Thus, in PS, she makes her famous remark about expulsion being worse than being killed, which could be an example of reason 2 (or it could just be a statement of fact: better dead than not at Hogwarts - Harry and Tom Riddle would understand).

However, I see her crossness with Harry and Ron over the Flying Ford incident as evidence of reason 3:  like Dumbledore and McGonagall, she realises that what Harry and Ron did was daft and dangerous.  I believe she is mostly angry not because of what they did but because of the attitude of the rest of the Gryffindors.

The Firebolt incident is not really to do with rules at all, as the Firebolt was not illegal.  She was merely being protective.  The outturn of events showed that in that particular case that was not necessary, but I would say that's merely a case of hindsight.  Whether anxiety leads to good judgement is IMO a separate issue from rule-keeping (though one that JKR addresses).

I'd say Hermione's concern over the Marauder's Map is likewise based on the realisation that it represents a danger to Harry.  It *is * illegal, but only because the twins de-confiscated it, and she does not seem to be saying Filch should have it back.

As a result of this increasing maturity, Hermione does not abandon rules, she just gets them in perspective.

The case of Harry with the time turner is particularly instructive.  Hermione repeatedly has to tell Harry not to interfere in a way that 'breaks the rules', but, given that the whole escapade is a Dumbledore-endorsed rule-break, it is clear that her concern is the consequences.  Harry himself admits that he would think some sort of dark magic was going on if he saw himself in Hagrid's hut.  However, when Harry does allow himself to be seen, it is precisely *because* he already knows what the consequences are, in a way that normally one never can.  He knows that he *did* see himself, so the whole imperative not to upset history *demands* that he be seen.  So he is obeying the spirit of the rule (don't use time travel to create paradoxes or otherwise upset the applecart), rather than the letter (don't be seen).

My basis for believing that JKR supports the responsible view of rules (as I think of it) is mainly that Dumbledore appears to take this view.  His twitch of the lips when describing Harry and Salazar Slytherin's picked pupils as having 'a certain disregard for the rules' says it all.  He is not about to let Harry get away with anything ('*Professor* Snape, Harry' sounds like zero tolerance to me; 'Please explain why you did this'), but he knows that rules are not everything.  He is consistently portrayed as on the side of order, not just good, the most telling case being the dismay almost universally felt when Malfoy suspends him.

McGonagall is interesting, too.  She generally behaves as though she takes the 'responsible' view, but just occasionally she appears to lack the courage of her convictions.  She tells Fudge that 'Dumbledore would never allow a Dementor on the premises', and while this may merely represent good psychology with the institutional-minded Fudge, it also smacks to my ear a little of appealing to Dumbledore's authority because she doesn't quite have confidence in her own.

There is a person in HP who is consistently portrayed as being a rule-breaker.  He is never shown doing anything other than things which no teacher would countenance, and would be seen as flagrant rule-breaking in any student.  That person is Peeves.  It is clear that he is not meant as a role model.  What he *is* meant to be (IMO) I will save for another post, but as a dot on the landscape of possible attitudes to rule keeping and breaking, he clearly represents an authorial 'Don't Go There'.

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 Apr  4 21:19:35 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:19:35 -0500
Subject: The Sleeping Woman
Message-ID: <56E68FDB.0A8BDF60.6E93A4F5@netscape.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37446

The Sleeping Woman

We have from time to time here discussed a number of issues that I believe are related:
-             Ginny's character is undeveloped;
-             Lily has received far less treatment than James
-             There is dissatisfaction among some listies with the way women are presented in general in HP.

I believe the common thread is that JKR has been suppressing femininity in the books, because this side of Harry's character, or rather, of the reader's perception of themselves, is yet to develop.

There are images of this.

In the Chamber of Secrets, a sort of Potterverse equivalent of Moses' Holy of Holies with its sacrificial altar, its winged creature, its spirit-filled book, its snake to be grasped and its special headgear and jewelled accoutrement, in short, in the secret place of Harry's heart, a girl lies sleeping, kept from consciousness by Harry's evil shadow.

(I have wondered if JKR's room of desire, the one she would visit, given an hour at Hogwarts, is the chamber.  It would be a typical piece of misdirection for her to describe it as 'mentioned' in Book 4, and it is a place plausibly with magical properties that Harry hasn't discovered yet.  We have certainly not been given any reason for its name - what secrets?  Everyone knew about the monster.)

She is wakened when set free from the shadow that has oppressed her, free to walk in the upper world again.

Poor Devin got a lot of flack for pairing Ginny with Harry a few weeks ago because she is the only other character to have had a serious run-in with Voldemort.  I believe he is on to something, though.  Postulating a romantic relationship may be a little premature, rather I see Ginny as symbolising the feminine complement to the predominantly masculine development we have so far seen.

Pippin too had a hard time living down her observation of the timing of Harry's first meeting with Ginny: again, I see this as symbolic, as is Ginny's apparent immaturity showing how far we have to go with Harry.  She has been characterised as behaving like a six year old, five years younger than Harry - when five books have passed, will she have caught up?  Likewise her overshadowing by no less than six brothers.  When he next meets her, visiting the Weasleys in COS, she is wearing sleeping clothes, just to make the point.

That this is about to wake is foreshadowed by Hagrid's relationship with Maxime (see post 36704 for the shameless imitation of reasoning that supports this), and hinted at by JKR in her recent television interview when she said Harry would ask questions that the reader would wonder why he had taken so long to get round to asking - surely a reference to Lily.  The increasing activity of Harry's scar (the sign on his visage of his mother's sacrifice - not a sign of Voldemort as AK per se leaves no mark) also points the same way.

Lily has been dormant too but at the end of GOF she finally emerged for the first time from Voldemort's imprisoning wand, *after* James, of course, who was already out through Harry's Patronus.

So, Book 5, lots more Ginny, lots more Lily, probably the much-speculated-on female DADA teacher (I feel that the distinctive characteristics of each DADA teacher should somehow reflect the theme of their book, but the clue to it eludes me.)  That femininity has its dark side ought to call Mrs Lestrange into activity, too.

In the longer run, some sort of mystical union between Harry and Ginny, which may or may not look like SHIPping, but symbolises the next stage of the completion of his character.  (If someone should contend that it is misogynistic for a girl to be used in fiction in this way, I reply that *all* the characters in HP ultimately serve as adjuncts to and completions of Harry as POV character.  This is fantasy: the whole series describes a parallel world which represents the reader's inner life and the characters, like Pullman's daemons or Ged's shadow twin (LeGuin: The Wizard of Earthsea), are but parts isolated for internal dialogue.  That brick in Diagon Alley is a window into your own soul, O Privet Drive dweller.  Solipsistic, yes, gloriously so; misogynistic, no.)  The final stages of Harry's completion to be the subject of another post.

The implications for Harry's development?  This depends, I guess, on JKR's conception of what it is to be feminine, or at any rate, to display femininity: she may lose some readers over it as she can hardly please everybody, even among current fandom.  The fact that Ginny is said to talk a lot until Harry's presence subdues her is an intriguing indication.  That Lily's wand was good for charms (cf animagus James' transfiguration wand) means what?  Mrs Lestrange, it would appear, has some sort of declarative or prophetic gift - she would be a mesmerising public speaker, far more convincing than Trelawney.

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 megalynn44 at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  4 21:23:22 2002
From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Meghan Stancil)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:23:22 -0500
Subject: Voldy's Mom as a ghost?
Message-ID: <F28ykjcZXEQC0JxmyrA0000da8e@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37447

Hi all, I am a lurker, and happy in my station. I came here to find other 
people's ideas on HP and don't have time to make long posts. Especially 
since someone usually covers my opinion. Anyways, the reason I am coming 
out my lurkdom is becaue I had a thought today I really haven't seen 
anywhere, and the way the conversation went I don't think anyone else 
thought of it.

Anyways, earlier there was an idea that Voldy's mom could be a ghost in the 
thread about Voldy's mom. Well, that lead me to think of the book's mystery 
ghost. The Grey Lady. She is barely mentioned in the books, but JKR has 
alluded to her signifigance in Interviews I have read. Her importance was 
furthered when she kept popping up in movie scenes. She looked rather young, 
thus she died young. And since JKR had so much input on the movie, that 
probly was not a mistake.

So, could the Grey Lady ghost be Voldemort's mum?

I will leave it to be considered and return to my lurkdom.

~Megs~

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com





From slinkie at nids.se  Thu Apr  4 21:24:31 2002
From: slinkie at nids.se (eledhwen_0)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 21:24:31 -0000
Subject: Molly and Missing Weasley
In-Reply-To: <000201c1dc19$0bef2680$221ce23e@i7p8l9>
Message-ID: <a8igaf+54vl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37448

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., m.bockermann at t... wrote:

> There is even more to support the Missing Weasley theory. And it is 
the very
> next scene after the end of "The Dark Mark" in GoF: it is in the 
chapter
> "Mayhem at the Ministry".
>snip<
The scene seemed totally exagerrated and out of
> character. This is a mother of seven children, I thought. With that 
many
> children, at least one should always be in trouble, ill or 
something like
> this. > But the scene takes on a totally different, hackle raising 
quality if you
> consider the possibility of a dead Weasley child.
>snip>
> After reading the article one would expect some anxiety... but to 
this
> degree? I don't think that this is foreshadowing or simply Molly's 
nerves.
> From what we have seen, Molly is a strong person who handles a lot 
of
> responsibility and masters it superbly. She is described as a 
friendly
> person, very loving who cares deeply for her family. But she has a 
temper,
> too, as can been seen in her arguments with the twins. That speaks 
of an
> inner fierceness. Such is not a person who would freak easily or 
without
> reason.
 

I think there is a very big difference between your child being sick 
and your children being alone, when you think there are mad, 
murderous wizards around. I think her reaction is normal considering 
that her children might run into a mass murderer. One of the people 
she cares most about in the whole world might be killed. I do not 
consider this to be freaking without a reason, it is a very good 
reason to freak out.A missing child does not have to be involved, 
even though i find the idea very interesting and it might be 
possible, but i do not think that this is proof for the theory. 


Eledhwen





From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  4 21:29:52 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 21:29:52 -0000
Subject: Compulsory education (Do all wizards go to school?)
In-Reply-To: <a8hish+6159@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8igkg+6547@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37449

Joanne wrote:

<<
In HPSS Neville explains, "I bounced -- all the way
down the garden and into the road. They were all really
pleased, Gran was crying, she was so happy. And you
should have seen their faces when I got in here -- they
thought I might not be magic enough to come". This 
implies that there are degrees of wizarding talent and
those with less don't get in (quite apart from no-talent
squibbs).
>>

That brings up the interesting question of how
acceptance to Hogwarts is handled. I thought McGonagall
(or the Deputy Headmaster/mistress) had some kind of
book listing every magical child born in England. So
what's the criteria, and how would parents prove their
kid met it?


<<
But we have evidence that not all wizards go to Hogwarts
-- the fact that Hogwarts send out acceptance
notification letters, for one, rather than all wizarding
children assuming they're going there (as muggle kids
would assume they're going to the local public high
school).
>>

Well, I didn't say they necessarily go to Hogwarts,
just school. Although I find it suspicious that there's
no mention of other wizard schools in England, there
probably are some - public schools. It's inconceivable
to me that education wouldn't be at least as much of a
priority to wizards as it is to Muggles.

Then again, I have no explanation for why wizards (with
their dangerous powers and all) only get seven years of
compulsory education whereas Muggles get twelve. You'd
think wizards would need MORE school, to fit in the
wizard training and the important Muggley subjects
like sociology and biology. (Yes, I think some Muggle
subjects are important to wizards, too. I suspect the
WW has been neglecting certain disciplines that would
be most helpful in designing new spells - for example,
neurological research could make an unbreakable memory
charm, or help find a way to break one without causing
permanent damage.)

I would certainly buy homeschooling as an option for
younger kids, but I still don't get why education
starts at eleven. Cripes, some schools here in the
States are considering lowering the age for
Kindergarten to four! Besides, you'd need to know
basic arithmetic before learning arithmancy. The lack
of higher education stumps me, too. I guess it's more
of an apprenticeship program, like someone suggested.

Seven years...<sigh>...just one more reason to wish
for magic powers....

--Anna (would also accept mutant powers if it meant
going to the Xavier Institute For Higher Learning)




From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  4 21:37:09 2002
From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 21:37:09 -0000
Subject: Do all wizards go to school?
In-Reply-To: <a8i552+7suv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8ih25+3p47@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37450

I wrote:

 > I don't think Stan did go to Hogwarts, for the simple reason that 
if
> > he is only a few years older than Harry (about 18) then he would 
have
> > seen Harry in his first year at Hogwarts at least.
> 

gwendolyngrace Wrote: 

> Several things on this one.
> 
> First, Stan may have gone to Hogwarts, graduated in Harry's first or
> second year, and Harry still may not have ahad any reason to notice
> him. If Stan was in a different house (we're guessing Hufflepuff) 
and
> at least 5 years older than Harry, why would Harry have seen him 
among
> the sea of other students (250 or 1000, if you don't have contact, 
you
> don't have contact)?


What I meant was when Harry go onto the Knight Bus, Stan didn't 
recognise him at all, and Stan belived that Harry was called 'Neville 
Longbottom'. If Stan really had attended Hogwarts, then 

1. He would already recognise Harry

2. He would have already known Neville Longbottom as someone else if 
he saw the sorting of Harry's year. 


Of course, this is all just assuming that Stan Shunpike ever even 
*went* to Hogwarts. He could have left the year before Harry 
attended, or he might have even gone to some wierd school on the 
plains of Africa. We just do not know. Sigh. 

Rosie











From StarHermione86 at cs.com  Thu Apr  4 22:37:32 2002
From: StarHermione86 at cs.com (StarHermione86 at cs.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:37:32 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do all wizards go to school?
Message-ID: <117.f62a5db.29de2fac@cs.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37451

In a message dated 4/4/2002 4:38:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
graceofmyheart at hotmail.com writes:


> What I meant was when Harry go onto the Knight Bus, Stan didn't 
> recognise him at all, and Stan belived that Harry was called 'Neville 
> Longbottom'. If Stan really had attended Hogwarts, then 
> 
> 1. He would already recognise Harry
> 
> 2. He would have already known Neville Longbottom as someone else if 
> he saw the sorting of Harry's year. 
> 
> 
> Of course, this is all just assuming that Stan Shunpike ever even 
> *went* to Hogwarts. He could have left the year before Harry 
> attended, or he might have even gone to some wierd school on the 
> plains of Africa. We just do not know. Sigh. 
> 

Are we missing the possibility that Stan might be a squib? We know that Filch 
works at Hogwarts in a non-magical compacity because of this. I believe that 
most squibs would most likely try to find work that does not require magic in 
the wizarding world, instead of venturing out into the unfamiliar muggle 
world.

Sheryl
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* 
      
        "Good Lord, Laura and Justin must be wondering what on earth took us 
so long." 
       "Oh, I'm sure they just thought we were shagging," he said casually. 
Hermione stopped short, a look of complete and utter shock on her face. -- 
Paradigm of Uncertainty by Lori Summers
    
"I have faith in our writer," he said, watching carefully for her reactions. 
"Specific sorts of faith like 'she won't kill me, again,' 'leather features 
somewhere in my future,' and 'I get first snog with any female cast members 
of our generation.' -- Draco from Draco Praeveritas 
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Fri Apr  5 00:23:30 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:23:30 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldy's mum
References: <a8h23e+v03v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007501c1dc38$1d4931e0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37452

Some thoughts on Voldemort's mum..

Barb said:
>As the last remaining heir to Slytherin, I have no doubt this is the 
>house she was in. Where else?

Well, this sort of flies in the face of the theme of choice and such in the books.  Why *must* someone with Slytherin heritage be in Slytherin house?  It seems as if the Sorting Hat sorts in accordance to a person's personality and such.  It is perfectly plausible that Mum had a Ravenclaw personality -- or even a Hufflepuff personality.  I know that *I* at least, am not the same person as my ancestors were.  The fact that Mum fell in love with Tom Riddle, Sr., a muggle, sort of points toward the conclusion that she did not hold the same views as Slytherin against muggles and mudbloods.

As for the fact that the Weasleys and the Malfoys do seem to be sorted into the same house as their other relatives is simply a reflection of the fact that siblings and their parents *are* likely to have similar views, etc.  However, I don't think this can be extended to Voldy's mum.  There's no reason for her to *have* to take after a distant ancestor.  Furthermore, Pavarti and Patil were Sorted into different houses, weren't they?  My opinion is that the Sorting is a very individual process.

Dicentra:
>And here I have to wonder if it was "just one of those things" or if
>her death might not have been helped along. Isn't it possible that
>someone knew who her son would become? Could Sybll Trelawney have been
>alive then (though young) and made THAT prediction? Perhaps there was
>a bungled attempt to kill Tom and his mother got it instead.

Interesting.  I have never thought of this before, but it's certainly a possibility.

Megs Said:
>Anyways, earlier there was an idea that Voldy's mom could be a ghost in the 
>thread about Voldy's mom. Well, that lead me to think of the book's mystery 
>ghost. The Grey Lady. She is barely mentioned in the books, but JKR has 
>alluded to her significance in Interviews I have read. Her importance was 
>furthered when she kept popping up in movie scenes. She looked rather young, 
>thus she died young. And since JKR had so much input on the movie, that 
>probly was not a mistake.

I LIKE IT!! *high fives* JKR *did* say that unhappy people become ghosts, and I can imagine Mummy Dearest would be one upset woman.  The only problem is that this would mean that Tom would have had his mother around during his years at Hogwarts, which IMO should have helped him be not-so-evil.

*Unless* Mom felt the same way as V. does about Muggles (and by association, Mudbloods)because of what Tom Riddle, Sr. did to her.  Under this theory, it's pretty obvious how Tom would have found out about the circumstances of his birth and his heritage - she could have told him.  Perhaps she even gave Tom a hard time about being the son of that wretched Muggle that wronged her.  Maybe it was *she* (as she could pass through walls and such) who found the Chamber of Secrets for Tom after posthumously deciding to embrace her Slytherin heritage.

The only problem (well, perhaps not the only..I'm sure you good people will be able to come up with others) is that I believe the Grey Lady is the Ravenclaw ghost.  Now, I believe that V's mum very well could have been a Ravenclaw, but if she was aiding and abetting Tom in his Hogwarts terrorism, it doesn't seem likely.  Maybe she just never told Tom she was his mother because she 
was...I don't know...too upset by the sight of him or something?

Or maybe she *did* tell him (the whole abandonment story and whatnot) and also told him she really didn't want anything to do with him (because he was the image of his hateful father or she could tell he was a bad boy from the start because of the way he kicked puppies and terrorized the other first years) -- this would have been particularly angsty for our already mental-unbalance Tommy.

eep..okay, maybe this theory isn't as perfect as I thought..any ideas?

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Fri Apr  5 00:38:42 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:38:42 -0500
Subject: Hermione and the Polyjuice potion/Acronyms
References: <029001c1dbfc$7fb08180$bd26fea9@default> <16169625096.20020404105141@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <007d01c1dc3a$3c8a6040$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37453

Susanne said:
>An I the only one who had the feeling that Hermione had some
>ulterior motive, besides wanting to find out who was behind
>the attacks?
>Her whole behavior made me think she really, really wanted
>to try out the Polyjuice potion, and not just to be helpful.

To me, that would be going directly against Hermione's personality.  Generally, she doesn't do things because she wants to (of the trio, she is the most likely to restrict herself on the basis of rules/what is right/what is smart), she does them because they are necessary/right/etc.  Even when she first suggests the polyjuice potion she is *very* cautious about it and states that it's very difficult and dangerous -- at this point it's the boys who are urging her to do it.

As for her behavior once the plan is in motion -- this is just Hermione being..well, Hermione.  In all arenas of her life (it is especially noticeable in the academic sense), once she decides to do something, she *does* it and she does it *right* -- full speed ahead and to the very best of her ability.  She may be slow to comply to such a risky plan, but once she's committed herself to it, there's no stopping her.

Plus, I think she's just a helpful person.  Some may think of her as callous, but to me, she is one of the most sympathetic characters in the Potterverse. I mean, who else even bothers helping Neville in school -- or standing up for him when he's afraid?
 
And now..on to a lighter note..

Grey Wolf said:
>Which means: Tabouli, you missed one of the acronyms that popped up 
>while you were away. It was proposed by my adversary in the discussion 
>of elves's enslavement (n? 37112), Laura (which was nice of her, since 
>it's the acronym for MY theory, which she didn't believe in):
>Laura proposed:
> E.N.S.L.A.V.E.M.E.N.T (Elves Need Slavery Lest Aggression and 
> Violence Erupt, Making Extinction Near Threat)

Ooo..Sneaky me.  Do I get a prize? ^_^

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Fri Apr  5 00:40:19 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:40:19 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy and Rules in HP
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1017967219.0.55425900@webmail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37454

A little reply to the responses I got about Percy and Rules. 

Penny reminded me: 

<<
First, I just wanted to note that one of the Philip Nel discussion questions is on this topic, and Amy Z is scheduled to present & discuss it in about 4 weeks IIRC. Not that we can't have discussions now, but I know Amy won't want everyone to be all talked out on this ... <g>
>>

I apologize if I jumped the gun with this discussion. I originally did mean it as a response to the discussion on Percy, and that got lost in my long-windedness, so for now I'll try to coax the conversation back in that direction. I do think that rules and laws are a big theme in the HP series, and that there remains a lot to be said about it. But I think we at least need to be aware of how the rules issue is portrayed in order to really understand how Percy is depicted; I think the two topics are directly related. 

Anyway, I think that the way that we read Percy is very much influenced by 1) our own comfort level with 'going by the book' and 2) the way that JRK sets up the situation. I think that if I knew Percy in real life that I'd just think he was a good kid who was a little uptight but still loved his family above all else. I think the fact that as readers some of us can actually imagine that Percy is evil percolating up right before our eyes is the result of the way the books go out of their way to show that a blind adherence to rules, bureaucracy and authority is not just annoying, but catastrophic. So I wanted to call that to our attention. 

Of course part of it is we do see Percy through the eyes of Ron, and frequently in his interaction with the twins, all three of whom see him as an unwanted disciplinarian, an unnecessary parent. I'd like to see a little more of how he interacts with Bill and Charlie, who probably have a very different perspective given that he's their much littler brother and they never had to worry about living up to his reputation or obeying his direction. They seem amused by his fussiness when the interrupt his work with their flying table bashing, but they do cut it out once he expresses his annoyance at him. And the three of them seem to have some solidarity when the go after the rioters at the Quidditch Cup. Still, Bill at least is not averse to telling him to shut up when he yammers on and on. I wonder if they'll be a more supportive influence on Percy than Ron and the twins tend to be. They might have a better understanding of what he went through during his toddlerhood during LV's las!
t tenure.

***
I asked:
<<
Is the horror of Law and rule-abiding in the books justified? Do the books teach common-sense over blind following of rules, or to they promote a dangerous distrust of proper authority figures?
>>

And David answered:
<<
I'm not sure that the horror of rules is as strong in the books as you make out.  
>>

Ha, maybe not. :-) But I really think JKR has foregrounded it as a major theme. I grant you that she winds up having a common sense attitude towards whether to follow or tweak the rules on a case-by-case basis, but what I marvel at is how she goes out of her way to portray a world in which the legal system is so problematic and corrupt, and there is very little comfort to be taken in its institutions. Dumbledore is somewhat comforting, but even then he can get trumped by miscarriages of justice. I find the Potterverse very terrifying in that respect. 

David continued:
<<
I think there are three reasons that people follow rules in general:

because Rules are Good and Must Be Obeyed;

because they are supported by a system of rewards and punishments;

because in the big picture each rule has a reason for being there, and breaking it will lead to undesirable or even catastrophic consequences.

My view is that Percy is portrayed as being influenced by the first reason, but much of this has to do with the fact that we mostly see his interaction with Ron and the twins.  It does go further, as when he insinuates Arthur shouldn't have spoken after the World Cup, but it need not be the whole story.
>>

Me again:
I think if you ask Percy which reason influences him, he'll say the third. This is one of the reasons that I'm inclined (after some thought) to say he'll turn out alright in the end is because he does often fall into the category of having some sort of protective or well-meaning impetus behind his attitude. I don't think he's motivated solely by status, power, wealth or any of the other problematic attractions that some people associate with ambition. Surely those things must offer some comfort to him since he is from a poor family, but I think he actually has some good ideas that get overshadowed by his pompous attitude. His pontificating about the proposals he'd make about Magical Law Enforcement was in the wake of Sirius' escape from Hogwarts, which must have struck everyone out of the loop as quite frightening and irresponsible. Percy is upset that Bagman doesn't bother to look for Bertha, something that does turn out to be significant. And even his fussing over cauldron b!
ottoms, however much it's played for comic relief, has as its motivation an overreaction to a perceived danger. It's pretty funny, he starts by explaining himself by noting "leakages have been increasing at a rate of almost three percent a year" and then proceeds with "but unless some sort of international law is imposed we might well find the market flooded with flimsy, shallow-bottomed products that seriously endanger - ." It's a huge jump from one to the other but it's symptomatic of the type of alarmism that a legacy of LV in ones life might cause. Not to mention we'd better not let Neville use one of those cauldrons. :-) Anyway, I don't read this as Percy scrounging for power or status; this strikes me as someone who wants to make the world a better place and just gets a little hung up on the details of doing so. 

OTOH I do find worrisome his quickness to criticize his father for Rita Skeeter's offenses. But I'm hoping this is the sort of thing he gets over when he realizes that the MoM might not be his best friend. After his interrogation is over. (!)

Thanks everyone else who responded with your remarks on good and bad rule breaking. I do agree the books are teaching, as Gwen puts it, a healthy questioning of authority. I just think they're doing it in a provocative way that's worth examining. And I appreciate Ali's examples of how the WW might *need* to be harsher given its legacy of LV and the strength of the average wizard. Pippin: I'll try to read _ How the Scots Invented the Modern World _ in time for Amy's discussion. It sounds really helpful; there might indeed be a cultural or philosophical basis that I'm missing. Thanks!

~~Porphyria, who will now go on to contemplate Sleeping Women



From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 00:46:14 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:46:14 -0000
Subject: That's an interesting theory
In-Reply-To: <02a701c1dc18$1b3887e0$5caf1e3e@stephen>
Message-ID: <a8is4m+p6g0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37455

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lucy Austin" <lucy at l...> wrote:
> At the risk of reopening the age debate, I must say I still think 
> it extremely unlikely that anyone is younger than Harry in his 
> year. As a July 21st birthday, I was ALWAYS the youngest in my 
> year, and someone with a July 31st birthday would almost certainly 
> find that he was also the youngest. I think Ron is several months 
> older, not younger.

Yes, I already posted saying Ron is five months older (March 1 
birthdate).  However, Hermione is either 40 days younger than Harry 
(if you subscribe to the Hermione-was-born-in-1980-camp) or 325 days 
older.  But what you said is that Harry is probably the youngest in 
the year.  By the law of averages, if there are 8-10 students per 
house in Harry's year with perhaps an average of 9 per house, that 
would make about 36 students in his year.  This would, on average, 
put about 3 birthdays in each month.  And even if it's very lopsided 
and some months have only 1 or 2 while some have 4 or 5, I find it 
hard to believe that absolutely no one in his year was born in 
August.  There has to be at least 1 other person in the year younger 
than he is (if not more).

--Barb





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 00:53:58 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:53:58 -0000
Subject: What did Tom know and when did he know it? (was: Voldy's mum)
In-Reply-To: <a8iecm+j00a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8isj6+fkvo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37456

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> wrote:
> This is all pure speculation, of course, but I do think that if 
> Tom Riddle had learned of his background at a later age (say 
> sixteen?), he wouldn't have reacted in the way he did. 
> I'm not sure I can explain this very well, but his fantastic 
> hatred feel deeply rooted in long childhood abuse and neglect.  As 
> if he channelled the abuse he suffered at the orphanage into 
> building up a completely hateful father image. The hatred - 
> planning what he would do to his father once he was grown up - 
> might have been his main solace there.

No doubt he built up a lot of hate while at the orphanage, but I 
believe when he discovered he was a wizard, most likely at age 
eleven, and went to Hogwarts, he first began formulating a plan for 
revenge, now that he had greater access to his powers.  By the time 
we see the Tom of the diary, he's been at Hogwarts for five years.  
That's plenty of time to building up the image of his father that 
you mention.  Have you ever let resentment seethe in you for five 
years?  It seems like an eternity.

> It doesn't seem to me psychologically sound that he would need to 
> construct this father image at a later age, especially if you 
> consider that he was at Hogwars at the time -  successful, well-
> liked and finding great powers. 

It's quite plausible, actually, in light of the neglect he suffered 
earlier.  It probably didn't take much other than finding out his 
father was responsible for him being in that awful place for him to 
immediately want to plan his murder.

--Barb
 





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Fri Apr  5 02:12:28 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:12:28 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Sleeping Woman
References: <56E68FDB.0A8BDF60.6E93A4F5@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <00cf01c1dc47$55d81da0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37457

Meepacheep.  *looks at the word she just wrote* Huh.  Okay, well hrm...some more thoughts.  Sorry for all the shoving of my thoughts down everyone's throats..they aren't toxic, promise.  All-natural, no preservatives added, honest to God.

David said:
>Lily has received far less treatment than James

Lily's importance is to come, I believe.  I think there's something going on with the green eyes -- eyes generally tend to be important in fantasy books, you know?  

>(I have wondered if JKR's room of desire, the one she 
>would visit, given an hour at Hogwarts, is the >
>chamber.  It would be a typical piece of misdirection 
>for her to describe it as 'mentioned' in Book 4, and 
>it is a place plausibly with magical properties that 
>Harry hasn't discovered yet.  We have certainly not 
>been given any reason for its name - what secrets?  
>Everyone knew about the monster.)

I thought it was the Chamber of Secrets because no one knew where it was?  Although, there definitely could be something else important connected to it.  Who knows..

>Poor Devin got a lot of flack for pairing Ginny with 
>Harry a few weeks ago because she is the only other 
>character to have had a serious run-in with 
>Voldemort.  I believe he is on to something, though.  
>Postulating a romantic relationship may be a little 
>premature, rather I see Ginny as symbolising the 
>feminine complement to the predominantly masculine 
>development we have so far seen.

Being female, young, and American, I sort of automatically bristle at the connotations and stereotypes associated with the words "masculine" and "feminine", however, that aside:  What is wrong with Hermione as a feminine portrayal, anyway?  It can't be argued that she doesn't associate with other females, and is therefore an unnatural female herself (she and Ginny obviously are confiding in eachother in GoF, and lots of girls like to hang out with boys -- why should this automatically rob them of their "femininity"?).  Neither can it be argued that she is an invalid candidate because she lacks the UTTERLY female virtues *voice is dripping with sarcasm here* of compassion, emotionalism, and romanticism.  First off, she's the one person we see consistently sticking up for/helping out Neville, whom everyone else in Hogwarts either despises or views as nice, but a bit of a joke.  Secondly, she gets quite emotional over Harry's various brushes with mortal peril on a regular basis.  Thirdly, she seems to have had her fair share of girlhood crushes as well, notably Lockhart -- she even put aside her all-encompassing logic for this one too.  *And* she reacts with dignity and maturity with Krum, who is, after all, what? four years older than her?  She must be one spectacular female to have a world-famous eighteen year old boy obviously smitten with her when she's only 14.

Furthermore, she's not "sleeping" as Ginny is.  Her character is multi-faceted and a major part of the story.  Not only that, but she is, as a person, fiercely intelligent, strong, hardworking, loyal, and absolutely ruthless when need be.  Again, I ask:  What more do you people *want* in a heroine, anyway? 

On a side note, I would like to add that although I am not particularly happy with it, I do believe that if JKR intends to pair people off in the future books, the pairs will most likely be H/G and R/Hr.  I don't like it, but from the way Jo's writing at this point, that's my prediction. 


>The implications for Harry's development?  This 
>depends, I guess, on JKR's conception of what it is to >be feminine, or at any rate, to display femininity: 

Hmm..well, we already know how JKR chooses to display her own (girlhood) femininity.  She has stated several times that Hermione is an dramatization of herself at that age. (I just don't understand why you aren't satisfied with this to the point that you go through the trouble of creating elaborate theories to find a substitute for Hermione)  As for a general view of what feminine is?  I don't believe in it.

I am female.  Therefore, everything I do is, by definition, feminine.  But another female's version of femininity is just as valid for her.  Same thing goes for you guys.  We're all crazy, whacked-out individuals.  There is no norm -- neither are there any set definitions for "femininity" or "masculinity".  It's sort of silly to try to pretend there are -- plus, it's just confusing, and kind of annoying. IMHO, it's better to just try to take everyone at face value and avoid preconceptions based on gender, race, upbringing, etc.  Obviously, no one can achieve this completely (we all have our biases), but it's still good to *try*. 

>The fact that Ginny is said to talk a lot until 
>Harry's presence subdues her is an intriguing 
>indication.

You don't think that maybe (just maybe) you might be reading a little bit to much into a little girl's reaction to a boy she has a crush on?  I mean, when I was that age, I barely had the guts to *look* at a boy I found attractive for more than a few milliseconds -- and I'm certainly not a shy person.  Even among older people (men and women), becoming tongue-tied, embarrassed, nervous, etc. is perfectly normal when one is around someone one is infatuated with.  It's a perfect common reaction, IMO -- especially when you're young (like Ginny) and haven't had much experience with the pretty intense emotions having the "fuzzies" instills in you.

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From editor at texas.net  Fri Apr  5 03:35:12 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:35:12 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly and Missing Weasley
References: <1017911708.11129.36295.m10@yahoogroups.com> <000201c1dc19$0bef2680$221ce23e@i7p8l9>
Message-ID: <012d01c1dc52$e5f8c780$717c63d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37458

Barbara Jebenstreit, who is just *begging* for a cool list nickname, said

> The first time I read "The Dark Mark", I couldn't understand Molly's
> reaction at all. (The first time, I was reading the German translation
> where - IMHO - the ambiguity of the end of "The Dark Mark" gets lots in an
> inaccurate translation). The scene seemed totally exagerrated and out of
> character. This is a mother of seven children, I thought. With that many
> children, at least one should always be in trouble, ill or something like
> this. As much as I adore JKR, I thought the scene was below her usual
> standard. Well, it happens to the best I thought, and moved on to the next
> where everything was again in order.
>
> But the scene takes on a totally different, hackle raising quality if you
> consider the possibility of a dead Weasley child.

<snip the rest of the great post>

Bravo! Well stated. I have also always thought Molly's reaction a bit
extreme, given the reactions we have seen from her to some of the twins' or
Ron's escapades. This was true fright, as opposed to Mom Being Extremely
Mad, and I know the difference, having more than a few child-induced gray
hairs myself. And I agree that a prior experience with having a child done
great harm while she wasn't there to protect it could bring on this
intensity. [It also may explain part of why she mothers Harry so; his mother
*was* there to try to save him, and failed...it doesn't *all* have to come
from a Universal Mom stereotype.]

The main objection to the Missing Child theory in the past was that Ron
didn't mention it. I believe that Ron doesn't know. In my family, sure, we
all would, we'd talk about it, but that's how *we* deal with things. But
plenty of families do not process grief that way, and might wait until a
very young child was older to explain, and then spend years not finding the
right time.

There are loads of other things that Ron doesn't know about the Voldemort
years; I likened it before to my own generation/age (I'm 37) and the Vietnam
war. It ended when I was in the first grade; I know next to nothing about
the particulars. I happen to have grown up in the window when those who were
involved just wanted to leave that part of their lives behind them, and
those who wrote history books did not yet include it, it was too recent. It
was not a topic of discussion at our house, it was either something for
discussion to take you away from or not something you discussed in front of
children my age.

So I find nothing particularly peculiar in Ron's ignorance of the Voldemort
years. They were horrific, and they are the recent past. All the adults in
the wizarding world were deeply affected, to the point where this is still
not what they chat about over scones and tea. And the history that the
Hogwarts children are learning will get them to the Voldemort years sometime
in what, their seventh year?, at the rate Binns is going.

But back to the Missing Weasley child(ren). Other objections, harder to
explain away, were two: (1) that the clock in the Burrow, whose description
I cannot find at the moment (rrrrgh!) shows if any Weasley is in mortal
peril; a glance at the clock should have reassured Molly. Counters to this
ran: dead is not mortal peril; it wouldn't register on the clock, and so
Molly could still be terrified; or, Molly is so wacked out by the resurgence
of her former experience that she either simply didn't think of it, couldn't
bear to look at it, or did and doesn't trust it. (2) If Arthur knew that
Molly was likely to have such a reaction, and it seems he did, then he could
have Apparated to the Burrow, reassured her, and Apparated back to the
children. Counters to this were that Arthur might not have wanted to leave
them, given that one of them is Harry Potter and the perpetrators of the
Dark Mark were still at large. [He could have sent Percy....had Percy
already gone someplace else? sorry, long time since I read this and I've no
time tonight].

Anyway, bravo again; I do think this supports the theory nicely. Molly is
not a castaway character, but rather central; I don't believe JKR would be
sloppy or casual about any details of her reactions. Molly reacted very
strongly because JKR wanted her to, and there was a reason.

--Amanda




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Fri Apr  5 04:11:46 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 04:11:46 -0000
Subject: Tango: Hermy (filk)
Message-ID: <a8j862+31f2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37459

Tango: Hermy

(To the tune of Tango: Maureen from the musical Rent)

>From a suggestion by Lisa Inman 

THE SCENE: The Quidditch playing fields of Hogwarts.  On broomstick 
are HARRY and VIKTOR KRUM.  At HARRY's request, KRUM is teaching him 
how to properly execute the Wronski Feint. During the music, HARRY 
and KRUM fly around one another in a simulation of tango dancers, 
with the Bludgers and the Snitch flitting about in time with the 
music.

HARRY
The Bludgers won't delay
But the Quaffle-

KRUM
There's another way
Fly upwards -- anywhere

HARRY
Right! - one, two three --

(A Bludger almost creams Harry)

KRUM
Anywhere but there
This is weird

HARRY
It's weird?

KRUM
Very weird

HARRY (to himself)
Blinkin' weird

KRUM
I'm so mad
That I don't know what to do
Fighting with Karkaroff
Wishing he'd bugger off
And to top it all off
There's that girl

She ignites such a spark
That for her I'd turned shark 
She's the one who once turned the time, you see 

HARRY
You're now a believah 
In that most learn?d diva
It's called the Tango Hermy

BOTH
The Tango Hermy!
It's deft dizzy Jeopardy game

HARRY
It's a hedgehog pincushion
..

KRUM (spoken)
You're right

HARRY

.that won't ever stop pushin'

KRUM (spoken)
No different with me

HARRY
There's just no holding back
As each fact she attacks 
She's all almanac and all woman

KRUM
I think she's the girl fer me

BOTH
The Tango Hermy!

KRUM
Has she ever heaved a great sigh 
And cried out, "Ronald"?

HARRY (spoken)
Never.

KRUM
Could she ever go for a guy
Who talks like Ahnold?

HARRY
We've been friends ever since she was rescued from troll disaster
But we're friends, nothing more


KRUM
                             
.it is clear none have surpassed her.

HARRY (spoken)
It's hard to fly this backwards

KRUM (spoken)
You should try it with Veelas!

HARRY (music)
That Skeetah

KRUM
She defeated 

HARRY
She gets heated 
If a sweet elf gets mistreated

KRUM
Should I join up with SPEW?

HARRY
When you meet in libraries
Is she yet unaware she 
Casts this love charm on you?

BOTH
With her teeth set so straight
She allures like pure fate
As a portent of great mystery 
While whole chapters she quotes
Which she has learned by rote
In that Hogwarts: A History

HARRY
The Tango Hermy
.
Who knows if she'll take Ron or take you
.

KRUM
Just came here for a trophy 
For the folks back in Sofia*

BOTH
But there's only one prize
It's the brain with brown eyes

KRUM
Oh my chum I've succumbed 
Yes it's true

HARRY
So even though she's skinny

KRUM
And though her voice sounds tinny

(Harry perfectly executes the Wronski Feint)

HARRY (spoken)
Missed the pitch!

KRUM
My Herm-own-ninny 
   
HARRY (spoken)
Matched!

KRUM (spoken)
Good!

HARRY (spoken)
You know - I feel great now! 

KRUM (spoken)
I feel
.Krummy

BOTH (music)
The Tango Hermy!

  - CMC

*Sophia is the capital of Bulgaria

HARRY POTTER FILKS 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Fri Apr  5 04:45:36 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 23:45:36 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups]Hermy (filk)/Herm and Death
References: <a8j862+31f2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000501c1dc5c$bab4d640$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37460

oh, bravo, bravo! *claps enthusiastically*

that was brilliant.  Rent is a wonderful musical, no? ^_~

laura (who *thinks* replying to filks on-list is allowed, because she's seen people at it before.  *glances around guiltily*)

I mean, it *is* okay, right?

P.S.  I just realized that my last couple posts were a bit well...fierce.  *blushes* I just get a little excited sometimes, you know?  I meant everything I said, but if I came off as um..witchy -- Mm'sorry.

*still feeling like she should put something canon-like in this post*

OKAY!  I was thinking, umm..thinking..Ah, yes.  I was thinking the other day, about  JKR's tendency to be, well -- contrary.

And everytime someone's like "oh, don't kill Ron." She's always like "But what about Hermione, I could kill Hermione you know." 

And it does seem as if no one really thinks about the possibility of Hermione getting killed off like they do about Ron.  So I was wondering, is this because:

1) No one (in the fandom) cares if she dies.

2) Ya'all think that since Harry isn't quite as attached to Herm as he is to Ron, it would make more dramatic sense for Ron to die.

3) Hermione doesn't really come off as a vulnerable person, whereas Ron does.

Personally, for me, it's a combo of 2 and 3.  Ron is more of the impulsive, emotional, leap-before-he-looks type, which sort of makes him an easier target for DE's, at least in my opinion.  It's also these qualities that make him, IMO, a more likely candidate for going Evil! than Hermione.  What do you all think?  Will Hermione die or go evil?  Why?  Canon? Anyone?  Do you think JKR is evil enough to do her in just because we don't seem to be expecting it?

*can't really picture either happening with Herm, but finds it disturbingly easy with Ron*

:( Personally, I cling to the hope that none of the trio will die or go evil..it'd be quite awful.

laura 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Fri Apr  5 05:23:15 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 05:23:15 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups]Hermy (filk)/Herm and Death
In-Reply-To: <000501c1dc5c$bab4d640$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a8jcc3+nn01@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37461

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:


> And everytime someone's like "oh, don't kill Ron." She's always 
like "But what about Hermione, I could kill Hermione you know." 
> 
> And it does seem as if no one really thinks about the possibility 
of Hermione getting killed off like they do about Ron.  So I was 
wondering, is this because:
> 
> 1) No one (in the fandom) cares if she dies.
> 
> 2) Ya'all think that since Harry isn't quite as attached to Herm 
as he is to Ron, it would make more dramatic sense for Ron to die.
> 
> 3) Hermione doesn't really come off as a vulnerable person, 
whereas Ron does.
> 
> Personally, for me, it's a combo of 2 and 3.  Ron is more of the 
impulsive, emotional, leap-before-he-looks type, which sort of makes 
him an easier target for DE's, at least in my opinion.  It's also 
these qualities that make him, IMO, a more likely candidate for 
going Evil! than Hermione.  What do you all think?  Will Hermione 
die or go evil?  Why?  Canon? Anyone?  Do you think JKR is evil 
enough to do her in just because we don't seem to be expecting it?
> 
> *can't really picture either happening with Herm, but finds it 
disturbingly easy with Ron*
> 
> :( Personally, I cling to the hope that none of the trio will die 
or go evil..it'd be quite awful.



I've always thought that it's because the hero's best friend being 
killed is one of the biggest cliches in literature.  JKR even 
alludes to this in one of her interviews when she is discussing the 
fact that this is one of the biggest worries expressed by the 
children who are fans of the book.  I can't recall which interview 
she says this in although it's one of the ones on Aberforth's goat's 
page, but even little kids have seen enough examples of this in 
books, movies and tv, to immediately see Ron as a possible candidate 
for this overused plot device.
I can't see JKR killing off Hermione just because no one expects 
it.  She has her own story to tell, and I really don't think she 
cares what the readers expect her to do or not do.  I also think 
she's too good a writer to play the "kill the best friend" card just 
to provide Harry with additional rage-motivation to take out Voldy 
(although bumping off Hagrid, Sirius, or Lupin could have that same 
effect).  The foreshadowing of doom for Ron and Harry is IMO a big 
red herring, so that we don't get too comfortable while waiting for 
her to finish the series.


Jo Serenadust, who is also *very* bored with the evil!Ron cliche, 
but will deal with that in a future post
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 05:37:10 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 05:37:10 -0000
Subject: Who gets the magical endowment?
Message-ID: <a8jd66+70ov@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37462

I started a poll in OT-Chatter asking who everyone
thinks will get a magical boost "late in life," and
since there were a few votes for "someone else"
(someone other than Petunia, Filch, or Dudley), I
thought I'd ask who else is a contender.

I've moved the topic here from OT-Chatter. I can move
it back if it's not, erm, TOS enough.

David writes:

<<
IIRC, there is a view that Arabella Figg is a Squib.
I think it's  supposed to be supported by an interview
or chat quote by JKR, but I haven't seen it myself.
>>

I guess so, but how can she be a Squib if she's part
of the "old crowd?"

Hmm, apparently my last post didn't fill my quota of
quote marks. Hopefully this makes up for it. ^_~


--"Anna"




From catlady at wicca.net  Fri Apr  5 07:23:29 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:23:29 -0000
Subject: Wizard School / Tom Marvolo Riddle's parents / who will die
Message-ID: <a8jjdh+pd8k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37463

I want all you guys to know that I love you so much that I'm doing 
this with a *broken* mouse. <snark>

Zoe Hooch wrote:

> Surely Stan wouldn't have the wits to pass most of the coursework
> we've seen the kids doing!

We don't have really strong evidence that Stan is dimmer than Gregory 
Goyle.

Grey Wolf wrote:

>  would like to know how many inches are in a foot

Twelve, of course, like ounces in a troy pound or eaches in a dozen.

Naama wrote:

> (what name would she have picked if it were a girl? Marvola?).

Marvolo was after her father (TMR said after his grandfather, but who
could believe that the Muggle grandfather was named Marvolo?) so I 
expect she would have named a girl after her mother.

Brenda Midgiecat wrote:

> I know that one body was Tom's father, but who were the other two 
> ....Tom Riddle's grandparents, or was Tom's father remarried and
> did he then have a child?

The younger corpse was Tom Riddle, Sr: Tom Marvolo Riddle's father. 
The other two were Tom Sr's parents.

Megs wrote:

> So, could the Grey Lady ghost be Voldemort's mum?

Yes, a new idea at this late date! If the Grey Lady is the ghost of 
Voldemort's mum, does that mean she was a Ravenclaw when she was a 
student? My idea of her, throwing away common sense as well as 
propriety for the sake of ideals (like free love) seems to suit a 
Ravenclaw better than a Slytherin.

Laura wrote:

> The only problem is that this would mean that Tom would have had
> his mother around during his years at Hogwarts, 

Maybe she could have been haunting elsewhere while Tom was in school, 
and come to Hogwarts when the previous Ravenclaw ghost moved on to the 
next great adventure...

Less unlikely, she was there and sometimes tried to baby him and 
sometimes tried to scold his bad behavior and teach him better 
ethics, all of which would have annoyed him, and made him hate her 
*almost* as much as his father, and made him tell her how unworthy an 
heir of the great Salazar she is...

Laura wrote:

> And it does seem as if no one really thinks about the possibility
> of Hermione getting killed off like they do about Ron.

I feel *certain* that JKR will not kill Hermione, because Hermione is 
JKR's Mary Sue, so killing her would be suicidal. I would not be 
greatly surprised if the seventh book ending with every character and 
the whole wizarding world dead except Hermione, who would write it 
all down in a book so that her friends' and mentors' courage and 
kindness and wit, and the beauty and glory of magic, would be 
remembered, even if only as a fantasy story.





From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Apr  5 07:54:33 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:54:33 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly and Missing Weasley
Message-ID: <ab.19cce873.29deb239@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37464

Amanda comments on Barbara's post:
> Bravo! Well stated. I have also always thought Molly's reaction a bit
> extreme, given the reactions we have seen from her to some of the twins' or
> Ron's escapades. This was true fright, as opposed to Mom Being Extremely
> Mad, and I know the difference, having more than a few child-induced gray
> hairs myself. And I agree that a prior experience with having a child done
> great harm while she wasn't there to protect it could bring on this
> intensity. [It also may explain part of why she mothers Harry so; his mother
> *was* there to try to save him, and failed...it doesn't *all* have to come
> 

Well said. 

> The main objection to the Missing Child theory in the past was that Ron
> didn't mention it. I believe that Ron doesn't know. In my family, sure, we
> all would, we'd talk about it, but that's how *we* deal with things. But
> plenty of families do not process grief that way, and might wait until a
> very young child was older to explain, and then spend years not finding the
> right time.
> 
> There are loads of other things that Ron doesn't know about the Voldemort
> years; I likened it before to my own generation/age (I'm 37) and the Vietnam
> war. It ended when I was in the first grade; I know next to nothing about
> the particulars. I happen to have grown up in the window when those who were
> involved just wanted to leave that part of their lives behind them, and
> those who wrote history books did not yet include it, it was too recent. It
> was not a topic of discussion at our house, it was either something for
> discussion to take you away from or not something you discussed in front of
> 

I agree totally. My parents generation grew up during WWII and it is common 
for people of that generation not to want to talk about it. Yes, the 
community spirit it engendered, the camaraderie etc, but not the painful 
details. The wizarding community seem to be particularly tarred with this 
brush. They seem to have a particular propensity to hide their heads, 
ostrich-like in the sand. They won't even mention Voldemort's name, let alone 
talk about the terror of living in the time of his greatness. They take 
refuge in rules and regulations, in cosy assumptions rather than face up to 
the possibility of it all happening again.

Amanda
> So I find nothing particularly peculiar in Ron's ignorance of the Voldemort
> years. They were horrific, and they are the recent past. All the adults in
> the wizarding world were deeply affected, to the point where this is still
> not what they chat about over scones and tea. And the history that the
> Hogwarts children are learning will get them to the Voldemort years sometime
> 

Yes. I wonder if Binns is spending so many years in the Middle Ages, or 
whenever the Goblin Rebellions were, simply to avoid having to teach more 
recent history.

Amanda:

> But back to the Missing Weasley child(ren). Other objections, harder to
> explain away, were two: (1) that the clock in the Burrow, whose description
> I cannot find at the moment (rrrrgh!) shows if any Weasley is in mortal
> peril; a glance at the clock should have reassured Molly. Counters to this
> ran: dead is not mortal peril; it wouldn't register on the clock, and so
> Molly could still be terrified; or, Molly is so wacked out by the resurgence
> of her former experience that she either simply didn't think of it, couldn't
> bear to look at it, or did and doesn't trust it. (2) If Arthur knew that
> Molly was likely to have such a reaction, and it seems he did, then he could
> have Apparated to the Burrow, reassured her, and Apparated back to the
> children. Counters to this were that Arthur might not have wanted to leave
> them, given that one of them is Harry Potter and the perpetrators of the
> Dark Mark were still at large. [He could have sent Percy....had Percy
> already gone someplace else? sorry, long time since I read this and I've no
> 

Ah... But what if the clock *did* say mortal peril (during the evening, that 
is)? With the DEs at large and Barty Crouch running around with Harry's wand, 
who knows what any of them might have done if cornered. OTOH, Molly might 
have been safely tucked up in bed by the time of the activity and missed what 
the clock said. Yes, by the morning, if they were dead, mortal peril would 
seem a bit inaccurate.
I think Arthur was concentrating on what at the time was most important. It 
may not have occured to him that the news would reach Molly before they did, 
as (as Barbara noted) they reached the Burrow shortly after dawn. (The paper 
also got there jolly early!)

I would imagine also that he and Molly have been through this sort of thing 
before. There must have been many times in the past (the past we don't talk 
about) when he was in danger and when Molly had to wait in uncertainty, 
perhaps times when the clock really *did* point to mortal peril. He can't 
have kept apparating backwards and forwards to reassure her and I'm sure 
Molly wouldn't expect him to.

Amanda:
> Anyway, bravo again; I do think this supports the theory nicely. Molly is
> not a castaway character, but rather central; I don't believe JKR would be
> sloppy or casual about any details of her reactions. Molly reacted very
> strongly because JKR wanted her to, and there was a reason.
> 


Seconded. Does this mean I've signed up to the missing child theory? I like 
to keep my options open, you know.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 03:14:05 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (columbiatexan)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 03:14:05 -0000
Subject: Generational Parallels
Message-ID: <a8j4pt+nts1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37465

My first post here, it's been fun reading y'all's messages up until 
now trying to get up to speed.  Someone said something in one 
of the more recent posts about Ginny being like Lily because 
they both had red hair, and it set me off to thinking today while I 
was at my lab...

I think if anyone in the current generation is similar to Lily, it's 
Hermione.  Please note, I'm not trying to be predictive of any kind 
of romantic relationships, though I do think Harry and Hermione 
would be better suited for a long-term relationship, personality-
wise.  Personally, I'm hoping that the members of the trio keep 
their hands off of each other until the final book, although i don't 
think that's going to happen--i seriously worry that any romantic 
relationship between Hermione and either of her best friends is 
going to ruin the dynamic of the Trio, and that's been one of the 
most fun things to read about/watch in these books.  I don't think 
there's any way it couldn't ruin that dynamic if J.K. Rowling is 
going to write it realistically, even if she doesn't set up any kind of 
triangle for Hermione's affections.  Even if the one left out is not 
interested in Hermione, he will still feel left out and be isolated; 
when my best friend started dating his current girlfriend, who 
was one of my best friends, even though I had no interest in her 
in the least , I was still a little jealous of him for having a 
girlfriend when I didn't and to this day, i feel a little left out.  Plus, I 
can't complain about one to the other :P

Anyway, back to the original point of this post, which is about 
generational parallels.  I know we don't know much about Lily, 
but from the little we've gathered, she sounds very similar to 
Hermione.  All we've been given to work with was that she was 
Head Girl, though Hagrid did allude to similarities in Book II after 
Malfoy called Hermione a "mudblood," when he's telling the trio 
that birth doesn't matter... he recalls Harry's mother, and then in 
his next sentence remarks that there's not a smell invented yet 
that Hermione can't do.  Both girls are Muggle-born (assuming 
what we've been told so far is completely true as regards their 
parentages, and there's not some secret with regards to that up 
Rowling's sleeve), and I imagine that caused both of them to 
have similar reactions to entering Hogwarts.  Lily may not have 
been as much of a pain in the butt as Hermione was at first, but I 
get this image that she was very much a hard-worker and 
enjoyed learning and that personality-wise, they were very 
similar in their desires to prove themselves academically and 
prove that they belongd to this magical world (she'd have to be 
exceptionally bright in order to be Head Girl).  Also, both girls had 
the added benefit of having parents who were very supportive 
and proud of their daughters' talents (contrast THAT to the 
Dursley's).  Part of me hopes that someday, harry and Ron go to 
spend the summer at the Granger's house (although with 
Voldemort on the loose, that's not likely to happen).  They sound 
like interesting and sympathetic characters I'd like to get to know 
better.  Plus, Hermione's best subject,or at least 1 of 2, but we 
know that she has exceptional talent at Charms--she's always 
scoring ridiculously high on Flitwick's exams--and Rowling has 
already said Lily's wand was particularly good for charms work.  
Though Hermione's OTHER best subject is Transfiguration, 
which was probably Harry's dad's and Sirius' best subject, 
considering they managed to do the Animagus transformation in 
their 5th year.  Make of that what you will....

Now, I did say this wasn't some kind of proof for romantic 
pairings, and it's not.  How you may ask?  Because, while 
everyone keeps bringing up how similar Harry is to his dad, 
again, like with Ginny to Lily, it seems to be parallel's between 
the physical likenesses for the most part (though, he is said to 
have his father's Quidditch skills (although Harry's Seeker and 
James is Chaser) and Black does remark that Harry is truly his 
father's son and Harry's Patronus... well let's just say harry has 
quite a bit of his dad in him).  But the person from the Marauders' 
generation who most recalls Harry, to me at least, is Lupin.  
Much like Lupin, Harry is isolated by something that happened to 
him when he was very young, something that he had no choice 
in.  Also like Lupin, Harry has a particular talent for Defense 
Against the Dark Arts (although, to be fair, we don't have any 
indication that Lily and James weren't talented in this area; they 
must have been to scare Voldemort, but I'm going on what we 
know so far--and so far, it seems like we're being lead to think 
that Lily's best field was Charms, James' was Transfiguration, 
and Lupin is particularly talented at DADA)  One of the major 
differences is Harry's horrible home life, whereas I get the sense 
from what little Lupin mentioned of his parents that they were 
sympathetic characters much like the Grangers and the 
Evanses.  I also get the feeling that Remus' parents are not alive 
anymore, and that, much like Harry, his entire world came 
crashing down the night James and Lily died.  As harry was 
kicked out of the wizarding world, so Remus lost all 4 of his best 
friends (really, the only family he had if his parents are dead)--
James and Lily died, Peter "dead," and Sirius in Azkaban.  Again, 
all alone (which is much like Harry--that's the most tragic thing I 
get from Harry, is how alone he really is, which I think is 
especially highlighed in Book IV, where he's sent off to fight Lord 
Voldemort without Ron and Hermione to back him up).  And 
finally, most members of the wizarding world are easily prone to 
suspect both Lupin and Harry because they don't understand 
what they are, and as a result, both Lupin and Harry, in my mind, 
feel like they have to hide a lot of who they are in order to gain 
some kind of acceptance in the wizarding world.  Example's 
include how harry was the #1 suspect in Book II, and how 
everyone automatically assumed the worst of him in Book IV 
(that he'd entered his name in the GoF, that he was lying about 
Lord Voldemort, and that he'd had something unsavory to do 
with Cedric's death).  Lastly, the fact that Remus, when relating 
the tale of his days as a Hogwarts student, was so amazed and 
thrilled to have real friends for the first time in his life (I think he 
uses those exact words, "For the first time in my life, I had 
friends")... sound like someone else we know?  Not only that, but 
he's amazed that they accept him for who he is, much like our 
beloved Ron and Hermione.

James and Sirius make me think more of Fred and George than 
anything else (this is especially interesting since Madam 
Rosmerta observes you never saw one without the other much 
like our favorite twins!), but they're described as being 
exceptionally bright, among the brightest students to go to 
Hogwarts (James would have to be, to be Head Boy; I imagine it 
was extremely controversial to have 2 Gryffindors named Head 
Boy and Head Girl in the same year--and there's an interview in 
which Rowling acknowledges that Lily was in Gryffindor and that 
James was Gryffindor Chaser).  That actually makes me think 
there are 2 prefects, one male and one female, for each year at 
Hogwarts, though others parts of the canon make me think 
otherwise (2 compartments wouldn't be enough to hold the 22 
prefects and Head boy and girl, would it?).  But it sounds like 
James was a lot more light-hearted than Harry is during his 
days at Hogwarts (understandable, considering how different 
their upbringings were).  

I guess, in short, this highlights the extreme danger in trying to 
look at previous generations to figure out what's going to happen 
in the books.  I like to look at it because it gives me a better idea 
of what makes the characters tick.  But I definitely think Ginny 
Weasley being a parallel for Lily Potter is a red herring (sorry, I 
couldn't resist), and I think automatically assuming Harry is like 
James is a little too easy.  He reminds me far more of Lupin, 
and Hermione is much more like what I picture Lily to be, though 
that may change as we get futher into the books.  

Neville=Pettigrew is the obvious (wrong) connection that 
Rowling was trying to lead us to, perhaps to make us view him 
as a sympathetic character at first in Book 3 (imagine, little old 
Neville going up against Voldemort's right hand man!  What a 
brave fellow, and how evil of Sirius to kill him so brutally!) or to 
make us suspect Neville.  but I'd find it really hard to believe Nev 
would betray HRH knowing what we now know about his 
parents.  And I think neville is as brave as the Trio, in his own 
way--he did after all ask Hermione and ginny to the dance before 
either Ron or Harry asked girls out, and he stood up the trio in 
Book I to protect Gryffindor.  I'm actually really hoping Ginny 
doesn't end up with Harry, because I don't think they'll ever be on 
an equal footing, and, barring some major change in the next 3 
books, Ginny's so far not had a chance to really get to know 
Harry for who he is and fall in love with that person.  And I think it 
would be better for her to fall in love with someone whom she 
was on an equal footing with, someone like... Neville?  I dunno, 
could be an interesting pairing, how could any of the Weasley's 
have a problem with ol' Neville, especially if he steps up to the 
plate in the upcoming war as I fully expect him to.  it's awfully 
interesting we don't hear a word about Ginny after her date with 
neville to the Yule Ball... yeah, he stepped on her feet, but don't 
tell me you girls don't find that charming sometimes or that it 
would have prevented the two of them from becoming better 
friends and getting to know each other better?

i don't think any of the friends will knowingly betray Harry, though 
I could totally see Ron being tricked into it... but hopefully no 
sacrifice!  I'm hoping the trio make it out alive and well through 
these books, though i could see A Tale of Two Cities ending 
(rowling reminds me of dickens the most among all my favorite 
authors, not dahl or tolkien) in this case and it would be awfully 
poetic. Very tragic, and very beautiful, and so depressing.

But there's my bit on generational parallels... I'm really actually 
quite shocked I haven't heard anyone else bring up the 
similarities between Lily and Hermione, to me, it's been obvious 
since the 1st book, something that's always been in the back of 
my head.  The Lupin/Harry parallel hit me much more recently; 
and I never go to thinking about how tragic that night must have 
been for Lupin until a few days ago, when i realized that in that 
one night, he lost the 4 people who were most important to him 
in the world.  But I don't think generational parallels are a good 
predictor of future events or of who's going to end up with who... 
so far, we've seen Harry go after a girl who most CERTAINLY 
does not resemble his mother either physically or personality 
wise (well that's not necessarily true, cho has to be smart to be 
in Ravenclaw, but I get the feeling she's not of the same 
breathtaking brilliance of Lily Potter, and that she's a lot more 
athletic than Lily ever was).  But it's certainly interesting to think 
about them as we wait for Book V.

looking forward to your hopefully not too scathing replies.

"Columbiatexan"





From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 04:16:03 2002
From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:16:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Missing Weasley
In-Reply-To: <a8igaf+54vl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020405041603.47868.qmail@web20804.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37466

   I have no problem with there being a missing
Weasley child to explain the gap. However what was the
child that young doing home alone? (If that's where
the Dark Mark was.) Where was Molly and the other
younger children? 

                       Eclipse

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 07:58:23 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:58:23 -0000
Subject: Molly, Percy and Missing Weasley
In-Reply-To: <012d01c1dc52$e5f8c780$717c63d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <a8jlev+n7ks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37467

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:
 
>Other objections, harder to
> explain away, were two: (1) that the clock in the Burrow, whose 
description
> I cannot find at the moment (rrrrgh!) shows if any Weasley is in 
mortal
> peril; a glance at the clock should have reassured Molly. Counters 
to this
> ran: dead is not mortal peril; it wouldn't register on the clock, 
and so
> Molly could still be terrified; or, Molly is so wacked out by the 
resurgence
> of her former experience that she either simply didn't think of it, 
couldn't
> bear to look at it, or did and doesn't trust it.

Maybe death would drop the handle out of the clock? And um - Harry 
Potter doesn't have a handle in Weasley clock, neither does Hermione 
Granger! And maybe the clock DID show Mortal Peril on them as Crouch 
Jr. stole Harry's wand. Nothing much seemed to happen, but it doesn't 
mean there wasn't danger! Add Rita's mention of Dark Mark to that 
and...

(2) If Arthur knew that
> Molly was likely to have such a reaction, and it seems he did, then 
he could
> have Apparated to the Burrow, reassured her, and Apparated back to 
the
> children. Counters to this were that Arthur might not have wanted 
to leave
> them, given that one of them is Harry Potter and the perpetrators 
of the
> Dark Mark were still at large. [He could have sent Percy....had 
Percy
> already gone someplace else? sorry, long time since I read this and 
I've no
> time tonight].

Arthur did know - that's why the haste. But.. how do you think Molly 
would react if Arthur Apparates to her *alone*? Definately not calm 
down! She'd ask where the kids were first thing! Arthur could do 
nothing to ease her *except* to bring the kids to her as fast as 
possible.

And of course he'd not leave the kids - not after Amos Diggory 
accused *them* of conjuring the Dark Mark! *Someone* had to defend 
the innocent children from baseless accusations! Besides he didn't 
*know* where the real guilty person was - stunned under invisibility 
cloak(as it was), hiding otherwise under one(grave danger) - or 
disapparated (as he assumed).

It is well possible that there *was* one or more Weasley Children 
that *died*. Say, Molly was out of house giving birth to Ron or 
working. They had a hired nanny to look after the kids, but there was 
a Dark Mark over their house. The Nanny was found dead, as well as 
some of the children. Ron wasn't even *born* then, as I figure it to 
have happened when Percy was 2-3; Too young to tell anyone/remember, 
but old enough to break a rule. So Percy would be afraid of breaking 
rules because it might cause his brothers to die. That's how a child 
in that age would think, I think. Believe that breaking rules 
*causes* a DE to apparate into your presence and kill everyone he 
sees! Percy doesn't remember, but he's been afraid of breaking 
rules/losing his sibling ever since.

The twins note that their brother stopped laughing - and found the 
brother dead later! (he stopped laughing *because* he died)...

Same event, different ways to see what it means-- childlike ways.

-- Finwitch





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 08:46:59 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:46:59 -0000
Subject: HP and rules
Message-ID: <a8joa3+jj4p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37468

I do not see it's about following or not following the rules at all. 
It's about making choices. Making the Choice between Right and Easy. 
Responsible, adult Choices. Yes, HP books give lots of examples where 
rule-following means bad trouble, and others when rule-breaking ends 
up with *good* consequences.

So does history. Mahatma Gandhi and non-violent resistance is one of 
the few examples disobeying law leading to something good! And there 
has been bad things coming for obeying. Wars. Torture. Death. Just 
because someone tells you to jump into a well, doesn't mean you 
should.

Harry Potter books just give the same lesson as history, with a nicer 
way. It doesn't say one is to obey all rules regardless of situation, 
nor that one is to disobey them. What it does say is that one should 
consider criticise and question.

That's what can be learned from Harry Potter, Dead Poets Society or 
history.

Compare Dumbledore's "*Professor* Snape, Harry" to his "temporary 
deafness" in Hagrid's hut where Harry calls Rita Skeeter a wench...

-- Finwitch





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 09:17:31 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:17:31 -0000
Subject: Hermione and the Polyjuice potion/Acronyms
In-Reply-To: <007d01c1dc3a$3c8a6040$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a8jq3b+iopo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37469

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
> Susanne said:
> >An I the only one who had the feeling that Hermione had some
> >ulterior motive, besides wanting to find out who was behind
> >the attacks?
> >Her whole behavior made me think she really, really wanted
> >to try out the Polyjuice potion, and not just to be helpful.
> 
> To me, that would be going directly against Hermione's 
personality.  Generally, she doesn't do things because she wants to 
(of the trio, she is the most likely to restrict herself on the basis 
of rules/what is right/what is smart), she does them because they are 
necessary/right/etc.  

The term 'ulterior' motive brings to mind something hidden or 
sinister. Hermione's character, being complex, had several 
motivations. Let's pick them apart.

Pure justice: Find the heir of Sltherin
Self-Preservation: As a muggleborn, she was a target.
Revenge: She wanted Malfoy to get what was coming to him.
Ambition: She wouldn't mind being the central hero.

We could probably guess others, but none of these really satisfy the 
definition of 'ulterior' for me. Ambition? maybe, but it's not really 
hidden. Anyone who works as hard as Hermione obviously wants to be 
best.

> As for her behavior once the plan is in motion -- this is just 
> Hermione being..well, Hermione.  In all arenas of her life (it is 
> especially noticeable in the academic sense), once she decides to 
> do something, she *does* it and she does it *right* -- full speed 
> ahead and to the very best of her ability.  She may be slow to 
> comply to such a risky plan, but once she's committed herself to 
> it, there's no stopping her.

I think Hermione's showing the ability to think outside of the box. 
She wants to do well at the beginning of Book 1 and is driven to read 
her schoolbooks cover to cover as soon as she got them. 

She made her first breakthrough at Halloween with the troll. Too 
terrified to act, she could have whipped the troll easily. Ron and 
Harry saved her and would have been punished for it if Hermione 
hadn't done something unbelievable to her a few days earlier. Lie to 
a teacher!

In Book 2 Hermione thinks up the plan for Polyjuice potion. Later she 
is the one who figured out the monster of the chamber was a Basilisk. 
(It helps that she memorized Fantastic Beasts) and in Book 4 she 
alone figured out that Rita Skeeter was an unregistered animagus.

I'm remembering Hermione's line from Book 1 "Books! And cleverness! 
There are more important things--friendship and bravery and--"

Hermione had the cleverness. She read the books, and she has the 
friendship. I think she has the common misconception about bravery. 
It isn't the absence of fear, it's facing fear and making the hard 
choices necessary. 

I think Hermione's something special. Viktor Krum, a quidditch star 
who could have had his choice of almost any Hogwart's girl recognized 
it. I think Ron and Harry (and Neville) recognized it. I just hope 
Hermione does. 

BTW speaking about Polyjuice, did anyone else see the Hermione Action 
Figure from the Harry Potter Slime Chamber Collection? It has cat 
ears and whiskers!

Uncmark




From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk  Fri Apr  5 10:12:52 2002
From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (edisbevan)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:12:52 -0000
Subject: Molly and Missing Weasley
In-Reply-To: <ab.19cce873.29deb239@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a8jtb4+2h5h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37470

Edblanning at a... wrote:

> I think Arthur was concentrating on what at the time was most 
important. It may not have occured to him that the news would reach 
Molly before they did, as (as Barbara noted) they reached the Burrow 
shortly after dawn. (The paper also got there jolly early!)
> 

This supposes there is no Wizards Radio News programme... and there 
is indeed nothing in Canon to suggest there is such a thing. CoS does 
however mention a Wizards Radio service, which Harry hears the first 
time he is in Molly's kitchen. With an 'easy Listening' music show.

This 'radio' (presumably not run on electricity or other muggle 
tricks)seems to be written out of later parts of Canon...

Also supposes there was no broadcast of the World Cup final for 
wizards worldwide following Quiddich...  

Edis






From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Apr  5 10:28:59 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:28:59 -0000
Subject: the term "wench" was Re: HP and rules
In-Reply-To: <a8joa3+jj4p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8ju9b+78mi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37471

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:

> Compare Dumbledore's "*Professor* Snape, Harry" to his "temporary 
> deafness" in Hagrid's hut where Harry calls Rita Skeeter a wench...
> 
> -- Finwitch

Does the US edition really call Skeeter a "wench"? in the UK edition 
of GoF, Harry calls Rita Skeeter a "cow" - p 393. I know that many 
phrases and words might not translate very well into American 
colloquialisms, it's just that "wench" has a totally different 
meaning in Britain to the insult "cow". In short Harry would never 
have used it!

If an English person (it might be different in Scotland, I don't know)
used the phrase wench they would be refering to a "barmaid" type i.e. 
a buxom woman, stereotypically wearing a low cut top and showing 
ample cleavage. Not an insult (or a term of endearment) that Harry 
would have been using about Rita Skeeter!

Given that Harry is English, even if he's being read by an American 
audience it doesn't feel quite right to have him use a word so 
utterly wrong for an English boy to say in that context. I find it 
strange that Scholastic can expect their audience to understand the 
idiosyncrasies of prefects/ Head Boys etc etc, but then make Harry 
speak "American"!

There are so many phrases common to the English spoken on both sides 
of the Atlantic, I can't see why they couldn't have come up with a 
more acceptable insult! The celloid thing changed phrases from PS to 
make the sentences readily understood by both cultures, perhaps this 
is an instance where the publishers should follow the example of the 
filmmakers!


Ali

(Hoping that OoP isn't changed as much!)




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Fri Apr  5 10:49:46 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:49:46 +1000
Subject: Computer calamities, acronym angst, house elf speculation
Message-ID: <003801c1dc8f$b0ba06a0$4b0fdccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37472

Alas!  Computer woes have struck on the Good Ship... (to avoid nautical exploits, skip to "*********")

Grey Wolf:
> The moon is high, and the great wolf rises his muzzle 
to bay triumphantly to the moon. One acronym has bypassed her security 
measures! Some day, not today, nor tomorrow, but some day, he'll be 
able to discover how TAGS works, and he'll be able to build his own 
version (operable by paws, of course).<

Just as she is putting away her acronym generator for the night, a distant sound freezes Captain Tabouli's blood.  It is the howl of a wolf, echoing in her cabin like a funeral bell.  She tries to put it from her mind, but the spectre of the Great Saladic Prophecy rises up before her... "The wolf bodes ill, O captain grave/ When moonlight waneth in the sky/ His howl may lock thee in a grave/ Where all can hear, yet none reply."

Trying to snort away the follies of superstition, the Captain decides to ascend to the deck for a breath of air.  She reaches for the door handle but it does not turn.  She is locked into her cabin.  Insisting to herself that this could just be a crew member's prank, she runs to the porthole.  Theory Bay laps gently at the glass beneath a waning crescent moon.  A shiver runs through her, but all is not lost, not yet.  She has a microphone in her cabin, from which she can send the crew messages over the PA system.  Trying to remain calm, she extracts it from behind her espionage files and makes the following announcement:

"This is your Captain speaking.  Unfortunately, my email is not currently receiving messages, and has not been for some time.  Please do not be alarmed if I do not answer any private emails you may have sent me during this time, as I have not received them or indeed anything for two days.  I am currently tracking down the culprits (starting with a call to my ISP), and reassure you that normal TAGS service will be resumed as soon as possible."

Grey Wolf:
> Tabouli, you missed one of the acronyms that popped up 
while you were away. It was proposed by my adversary in the discussion 
of elves's enslavement (n? 37112), Laura (which was nice of her, since 
it's the acronym for MY theory, which she didn't believe in):

Laura proposed:
> E.N.S.L.A.V.E.M.E.N.T (Elves Need Slavery Least Aggression and 
> Violence Erupt, Making Extinction Near Threat)

Perspiring slightly, the Captain is about to start pacing the room in agitation, when something new catches her eye.  It is a message in her intray she is *sure* wasn't there a couple of hours ago.  It gloats at the fact that she failed to respond to another acronym request, and is signed with a large and sinister paw-print.  A second shiver joins the first, which has been wandering around the Captain's body ever since she heard the howl. Cut off from her spies and allies, she is helpless to retaliate.  A prisoner on her own Ship, she sits staring and staring at this ominous new message...

*********
Well well, O lupine one!  House elves, eh?  Are you saying that Winky and Dobby are, deep down, creatures of violence and ill-will?   Hmmm.  Well, maybe.  It seems clear, at least, that they have strong magical powers, apparently stronger than the powers of wizards.  There are hints that Dobby is able to do something similar to Apparating *within Hogwarts*, and instill fear in none other than Lucius Malfoy, all without the benefit of a wand!  Impressive.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say the house-elves *need* to be enslaved, but certainly evidence that they'd make bad enemies.  And excellent allies, if their masters and mistresses could get them all moving in the same direction.  Perhaps Dobby's emancipation is foreshadowing a house-elf revolution, where the freed elves of Dark Wizards could join the war against Voldemort, led by Dobby!

There's only one problem with this plan.  Brains.  How smart do people think house-elves are?  It's possible that their dubious grammar is in fact a valid species dialect, that Dobby's loud shrieking at the Dursleys was just his being overcome with emotion, or their blind loyalty to the point of self-mutilation bespeaks a huge sense of duty rather than a tiny amount of sense, but I do wonder.  I suppose if JKR is making an allegorical point about slavery their behaviour would need to reflect a lack of opportunity for education and self-actualisation, rather than actual lack of ability.  Certainly once Dobby decides to act as a free agent he's pretty crafty, if a bit misguided.

Which is why my fledgeling thoughts on the house-elf/Wizard relationship are that it is symbiotic... the Wizard is the brain of the relationship and the house-elves the magical "brawn", so to speak.  It's just that over time the wizards discovered that the house-elves were so awed by wizards that they were prepared to do all their dirty work, and eventually did, becoming slaves.

Not a theory I've explored at length, just a musing.

The other point I'm musing on here is the wand issue.  Wizards can do magic without wands under some circumstances, house-elves can under all circumstances and are indeed forbidden from using wands (probably because their native power is too great and make end in disaster).  What about other sentient magical creatures?  From GoF, it appears that mermaids can't do magic (IIRC), phoenixes have some magic, how about centaurs and acromantulas and so on??

Tabouli (going off to ring her ISP and Demand Answers...)

P.S.  Oh yes, as for slavery as a means of keeping elfin violence under control, yes, it's possible that these obviously dangerous, puissant creatures are being S.U.P.P.R.E.S.S.E.D. (Slavery Usurps Perilous Powers, Rendering Elves Simple, Self-Effacing Drudges)...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Fri Apr  5 11:09:16 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:09:16 +1000
Subject: Computer update
Message-ID: <004b01c1dc92$5436d4a0$4b0fdccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37473

Ha.  My ISP told me that they're changing over (read  being sold to) a larger provider, and delays are to be expected this week.  The test message they sent to me arrived, so maybe the crisis is over.  One more thing:

"The wolf bodes ill, O captain grave/ When moonlight waneth in the sky/ His howl may lock thee in a grave/ Where all can hear, yet none reply."

Gah!  Got my own Saladic Prophecy wrong!  "O captain *brave*"!

Tabouli (who will comment on Voldemort's mother and other interesting topics when her mailbox gets back into gear)




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Apr  5 15:14:19 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:14:19 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly and Missing Weasley
Message-ID: <d3.9643774.29df194b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37474

Edis quotes me (Eloise):

> > I think Arthur was concentrating on what at the time was most 
> important. It may not have occured to him that the news would reach 
> Molly before they did, as (as Barbara noted) they reached the Burrow 
> shortly after dawn. (The paper also got there jolly early!)
> > 
> Edis:
> This supposes there is no Wizards Radio News programme... and there 
> is indeed nothing in Canon to suggest there is such a thing. CoS does 
> however mention a Wizards Radio service, which Harry hears the first 
> time he is in Molly's kitchen. With an 'easy Listening' music show.
> 
> This 'radio' (presumably not run on electricity or other muggle 
> tricks)seems to be written out of later parts of Canon...
> 
> Also supposes there was no broadcast of the World Cup final for 
> wizards worldwide following Quiddich...  
> 

This was something I was aware of when I was writing. We don't hear a lot 
about the Wizarding Wireless Network, do we? 
This needn't be a problem, I think. The match was over well before the 
trouble started, so unless Molly was in the habit of listening to the 
wireless during the night, she needn't have been expected to have heard the 
news that way.
The thing that struck me after I had sent my last post though was that not 
only did the paper arrive very early, but Molly was up very early too, so she 
*could* have heard an early news broadcast.
The point remains the same, though. I don't think Arthur was expecting her to 
be up in the night or at the crack of dawn when she had had no reason to 
worry that anything was going to happen before they left.
 
But *is* the WWN written out of canon later? Let me check. (Rapid flick 
through GoF). No, here it is, in The Unexpected Task, 

'Exactly who or what the Weird Sisters were Harry didn't know, never having 
had access to a wizard's wireless, but he deduced from the wild excitement of 
those who had grown up listening to the WWN (Wizarding Wireless Network) that 
they were a famous musical group.'

It has always struck me as very odd that none of the students we know seems 
to have a wireless in their dormitory, although quite in keeping with the 
general lack of mention of other recreational pursuits in the books.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Whirdy at aol.com  Fri Apr  5 15:50:52 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:50:52 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] On following rules and Percy's predilications
Message-ID: <57.95fc931.29df21dc@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37475

In a message dated 4/4/02 3:01:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
porphyria at mindspring.com writes:


> I've been intrigued by the recent Percy discussions and the question of 
> whether or not he will get himself into trouble on account of his 
> propensity for following rules.

Equally fascinating and perhaps a point of discussion I may have missed is 
the fact that Percy assessed points against Gryffindor when Ron was 
disrespectful to Percy "Prefect."   Later, Ron as Crabbe confronts Percy and 
Draco Malfoy is told that he should "show a bit more respect to a school 
prefect," Percy does not cry out "five points against Slytherin" for their 
disrespect.

I have come to the conclusion that many in authority in Potterverse do not 
exercise the authority they have responsibly or they otherwise simply hide 
behind it to cover their incompetence.

Off on another track - even though Quidditch was suspended for the Triwizard 
Tournament, while many voices were heard, did I overlook the outraged protest 
of the new team captain who is ?  And how is one selected or elected for the 
House Team?  The only two mentions of joining any team is MM presenting Harry 
to Oliver as "your new seeker" and Draco Malfoy being "swept" onto the 
slytherin team.  

And is there "sand-lot" or "little-league" Quidditch?  It is the most popular 
Wizard sport, or the most popular Wizard spectator-sport?  And can anyone 
clear up the rules about substitutions?

whirdy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Apr  5 16:55:57 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:55:57 -0000
Subject: Crouch Sr. (the abbreviated version)
Message-ID: <a8kkut+2ptm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37476

I was flipping through the acronym list the other day and came on 
B.A.B.E.M.E.I.S.T.E.R.: the definition of which escapes me except that 
think the second B. stood for Barty and S. stood for sexier. The whole 
thing frightened me, and I wanted to get it out of my mind, along with 
 F.O.R.L.O.R.N.B.A.R.T.E.M.I.U.S.: the theory where Mrs. Lestrange 
seduced Barty Jr. to spite his father.

How come Crouch Sr. doesn't have a cool acronym, I wondered? He had 
grey hair in GoF, for sure, but a kid like Bartemius Jr. would give 
anyone grey hair. It's described as dark beforehand. Until the very 
end, he was extremely attentive of his looks, he was a very popular 
politician, and if you read all his description pieces (when he isn't 
ready to pop a vein, in which case Rowling reaches for the word 
"bulging",) he comes across as quite a striking personality. If his 
eyes aren't "bulging" under the stress of yet another personal 
tragedy, Rowling's favourite word for them is "sharp." In fact, I was 
very much surprised to discover that most of the code words for Crouch 
Sr. were rather attractive, contrast to Snape who gets the most 
hideous code words in the book. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a 
conscious contrast, indicating beauty is skin deep. Therefore, I 
demand that Tabouli write an acronym demonstrating that Crouch Sr. was 
indeed sexy. 

Or at least that's what I planned to write about. Looking for evidence 
in the books, I ended up analysing every reference to Crouch in GoF. 
The post went on for about 6 pages, and covered everything from Ludo's 
significant offhand introduction of Crouch, "Talk of the Devil" to the 
 significance of Barty Jr. being fair-haired, while his father was 
dark-haired. Unfortunately, my computer crashed. So, this post just 
goes over a few salient points.

1. While under the Imperius curse, Crouch sometimes acts like an 
automaton. However, he breaks through it with his own personality at 
the end of the Goblet of Fire scene. "I've left young Weatherby in 
charge ... very enthusiastic ... a little over-enthusiastic, if truth 
be told ..." which goes against Ron's assertion that Crouch has no 
sense of humour, and makes one wonder if Crouch would have been an 
entirely bad influence on Percy. There's a lot of lessons that Percy 
has to learn, but this "over-enthusiasm" as Crouch puts it, is getting 
in the way of learning any of them. He wouldn't ever drop it on Gred 
and Forge's suggestion, but could contact with Crouch have cured him 
of it? 

2. Which leads to the fact that Percy is not Crouch in miniature. 
First of all, all evidence does point to Percy's assertion that Crouch 
is indeed a brilliant man. But he has more than that. A certain style, 
a calmness in the most bizarre situations (the only time he loses his 
temper is right at the very end of the trial scene), a methodical way 
of going about things. This is a man that people pay attention to, as 
they did when Voldemort was alive. Meanwhile, Percy, no matter how 
brainy, comes across to everyone as an annoying puppy, bounding 
about and showing off. 

3. On the House-elf front, dismissing Winky was a very bad move. 
Crouch is being very Roman there. "Caesar's wife must be above 
suspicion," and it kills him. If he had had Winky by his side when 
Voldemort came, I think he would have had good odds against Pettigrew 
and his EvilUndeadBabyMaster. Later, Crouch's story becomes even more 
expressly Livian. The condemnation of Crouch Jr. seems to me to be a 
conscious analogue of the famous old story about Brutus (not the one 
who stabbed Caesar, but an ancestor) condemning his sons to death for 
their treachery. And the wizarding world blanches at it, which shows 
that they're losing their touch? Crouch also does not forget things, 
and perhaps stands for the evils of excessively dwelling on the past, 
as opposed to Fudge who tries to sweep the past under the rug.

4. Crouch did not sacrifice his son to his career ambition. This seems 
to be a red herring in the plot. Crouch thought Barty Jr. was as 
guilty as sin, and was quite justified in thinking so. Yelling "I have 
no son" after everything else was tactless and career-damaging, but 
not indicative of some Slytherinesque scheme (put up your hands if you 
think Crouch Sr. was in Slytherin.)His mistakes were made before and 
after Barty Jr. was sent to Azkaban.

5. If Crouch had survived GoF, he would very likely have finally been 
made Minister of Magic. With Voldemort back, he would not have stayed 
silent, and people would have rallied behind him. Deep down, Fudge is 
thanking his lucky stars that Crouch was killed. 

6. Barty Jr. is an ungrateful b-eeeeeeeeeep. Don't care how unloving 
he thought his father was. Being under Imperius curse was a heap nicer 
than Azkaban, especially since he was guilty. I loved Elkins's 
comparison of Barty Jr. to Boo Radley, however. 

7. Barty Jr. inherited his talent for acting from his father. Watch 
how he manipulates Diggory in "The Dark Mark": down to the point where 
 he allows Diggory to question Winky superficially, and keeps 
completely out of it to look objective, and then blocks Diggory 
from actually finding out anything. 

8. Did anyone else notice how on second reading, Arthur Weasley's cry, 
"STOP! That's my son!" takes on an extra connotation, with Crouch 
beside Weasley, thinking almost the same thing. 

9. J.K. Rowling said that it's the unhappy people who come back as 
ghosts. I can't think of a person in all the books who dies more 
unhappily than Crouch Sr. 

Eileen, eagerly awaiting the requested acronym




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 17:29:44 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:29:44 -0000
Subject: Quidditch Time! (was: On following rules and Percy's predilications)
In-Reply-To: <57.95fc931.29df21dc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a8kmu8+grvd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37477

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote:
> Off on another track - even though Quidditch was suspended for the 
> Triwizard Tournament, while many voices were heard, did I overlook 
> the outraged protest of the new team captain who is ?  And how is 
> one selected or elected for the House Team?  The only two mentions 
> of joining any team is MM presenting Harry to Oliver as "your new 
> seeker" and Draco Malfoy being "swept" onto the slytherin team.  
> 
> And is there "sand-lot" or "little-league" Quidditch?  It is the 
> most popular Wizard sport, or the most popular Wizard spectator-
> sport?  And can anyone clear up the rules about substitutions?

On page 94 of PS, Dumbledore says, "Quidditch trials will be held in 
the second week of term.  Anyone interested in playing for their 
house teams should contact Madam Hooch."  Oddly, this makes it sound 
like Hooch, not the team captain, is in charge of deciding who's on 
the team.  Perhaps this is to assure that the best players are 
chosen, not just the captain's friends (if this is the case, 
McGonagall is taking liberties.)  It could be that the existing 
Gryffindor players (Bell, Johnson, Spinnet, Weasley & Weasley, 
Harry) are too excited about the tournament to voice a protest over 
Quidditch.

I think that "sand-lot" Quidditch is unlikely, given how much the 
Ministry has to go through just to hide professional games from 
Muggles.  ("The necessity for keeping the game of Quidditch secret 
from Muggles means that the Department of Magical Games and Sports 
has had to limit the number of games played each year."  QTTA, p. 
31.)  Doing this for multiple pee-wee teams seems like it would be 
rather burdensome for the Ministry; people would probably rather 
have more professional games if there was an option.

On page 125 of PS, Wood tells Harry, "A game of Quidditch only ends 
when the Snitch is caught, so it can go on for ages -- I think the 
record is three months, they had to keep bringing on substitutes so 
the players could get some sleep."  This would seem to be 
contradicted by Quidditch rule #5 from QTTA:

"5. In the case of injury, no substitution of players will take 
place.  The team will play on without the injured player."

However--Wood didn't say the substitutions were because of injury. 
It was so the other players could sleep.  This seems to imply that 
some other excuses may be acceptable for making subsitutions.  Also, 
it implies that if the Seeker is injured, the team must play without 
him/her, in spite of the fact that only the Seeker may touch the 
Snitch (a player who is not the Seeker who touches the Snitch is 
committing the foul called a "Snitchnip").  It seems this rule 
wasn't very well thought-out, frankly.  It doesn't say 
categorically, "No substitution of players will take place," it 
qualifies this statement by talking about injuries.  What if someone 
curses a player such that they can no longer function, but they're 
not technically injured?  Could you have a substitution then? Etc., 
etc...

I supposed it's possible that if one team is missing its Seeker, the 
other captain could magnanimously invoke rule #7 and agree that the 
game is over.  ("7. A game of Quidditch ends only when the Golden 
Snitch has been caught, or by mutual consent of the two team 
Captains." QTTA, p. 28.)  This probably should have been done by the 
captains in the three-month match to which Wood refers.  Since rule 
#2 says a time-out can be no more than two hours (and then only if 
the game has lasted more than 12 hours), this would certainly make 
it difficult to carry on playing without substitutes.  (Play for 
twelve hours, rest for two.  Sounds like fun, eh?)

So, to answer your question--No, the rule about substitution cannot 
be cleared up until JKR authorizes a new, corrected version of QTTA 
or writes something in canon which contradicts or better explains 
rule #5 in QTTA.  As it stands now, the rule is far too vague.

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/AuthorLinks/Barb







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Apr  5 19:22:21 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 19:22:21 -0000
Subject: The Sleeping Woman
In-Reply-To: <56E68FDB.0A8BDF60.6E93A4F5@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <a8kthd+nq6i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37478

David wrote:

>>We have from time to time here discussed a number of 
issues that I believe are related:
-             Ginny's character is undeveloped;
-             Lily has received far less treatment than James
-             There is dissatisfaction among some listies with the way 
women are presented in general in HP.

I believe the common thread is that JKR has been suppressing 
femininity in the books, because this side of Harry's character, or 
rather, of the reader's perception of themselves, is yet to 
develop.<<


I would say it is not femininity which is being suppressed but 
sexuality, both because explicit sexual content would be out of 
keeping with the tone of the books and because this part of 
Harry's psyche has not yet developed. Harry relates to females 
as splintered, incomplete aspects of the mother he has lost, as 
symbolized by the M in many of their names. He represses his 
awareness of  their sexuality as much as he can. He seems to 
wish his thoughts about Cho would just go away.  It is only at the 
very end of GoF that he allows himself to enjoy the feeling he 
gets while watching Fleur in the distance. 

However, as many have noticed, sexuality is not absent from the 
novels. Instead, it is disguised. Using the traditional symbols of 
fairy tales, such as toads and magical trances, Rowling deals 
with sexual development in a non-threatening way. Consider  
Hermione's first appearance in PS/SS. She arrives with Neville 
under her wing, in search of a lost toad. Freudians will not need 
to be told that the toad in fairy tales is a symbol of sexual 
relations (Bettelheim, The Uses of Enchantment.)  In fairy tale 
language, the toad is the part of Hermione's sexuality that is 
"lost", ie not yet developed. As in the many tales where the toad, 
or frog, becomes a handsome prince,  this little episode teaches 
how what might  seem ugly and repulsive may be transformed 
by love into something highly desireable. 

Hermione is far more comfortable with the nurturing aspects of 
her femininity.  She exercises her maternal skills on  various 
orphaned characters: Neville, Harry, Hagrid,  and Winky.  It is 
interesting that Ron resists her attempts to mother him, and  that 
she in turn accepts a date with Viktor Krum knowing that school 
loyalty will forbid her to indulge her coaching instincts.

Ginny, on the other hand, does not assume a maternal role 
toward Harry (nor does she carry the ubiquitous M). I agree that 
her immaturity and neediness are echoes of Harry's own and 
that we will see her grow out of them just as Harry has.  Her 
rescue may be seen as Harry rescuing his own feminine side, 
but also as a symbolic defeat of Harry's sexual fears as 
embodied in the traditional Serpent.

 As Harry grows into adulthood, his need for a surrogate mother 
may diminish and he may come to desire a romantic rather than 
nurturing relationship with a female friend. The Oedipal need to 
separate his yearning for a mother from his sexual desires 
might actually drive him away from Hermione at that point, 
although her  kiss at the end of GoF may signal her desire to 
have things otherwise.

One of the lessons of the Potter books is that, unless you have 
the brains of the Sorting Hat, it is unwise to slot people into rigid 
categories as a result of your first impression. It is possible that 
as they mature, Hermione and Ginny will switch roles, with Ginny 
taking on more of the nurturing and Hermione developing a 
romantic interest in our Harry. And then, of course, they might 
switch again ;-)

Pippin




From pennylin at swbell.net  Fri Apr  5 20:24:16 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 14:24:16 -0600
Subject: Generational Parallels
References: <a8j4pt+nts1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003a01c1dcdf$f5752f40$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37479

Hi --

Welcome Columbiatexan -- I see that you're a newbie!  :--)  I have about a million other things I need to be doing right now, but I absolutely wanted to respond to this post.  I saw the subject "Generational Parallels" & thought "Oh, that's probably just another rehashing of the same old Hermione parallels Lupin, Ron parallels Sirius, Harry parallels James post" and you certainly proved me wrong.  This is some wonderful insightful stuff IMO -- of course, I have some ....er....*well-known* biases.  

<<<<<<<<I think if anyone in the current generation is similar to Lily, it's Hermione.  Please note, I'm not trying to be predictive of any kind 
of romantic relationships, though I do think Harry and Hermione 
would be better suited for a long-term relationship, personality-
wise.>>>>>>>>>>>> 

First, let me be one of the first to offer you a stateroom on the H/H Ship -- you're welcome aboard anytime!  <g>

<<<Personally, I'm hoping that the members of the trio keep 
their hands off of each other until the final book, although i don't 
think that's going to happen--i seriously worry that any romantic 
relationship between Hermione and either of her best friends is 
going to ruin the dynamic of the Trio, and that's been one of the 
most fun things to read about/watch in these books.  I don't think 
there's any way it couldn't ruin that dynamic if J.K. Rowling is 
going to write it realistically, even if she doesn't set up any kind of 
triangle for Hermione's affections.  Even if the one left out is not 
interested in Hermione, he will still feel left out and be isolated;>>>

Ditto.  If there's to be any romantic pairing or romantic triangle, the dynamic will absolutely change.  

<<<<<<<<Anyway, back to the original point of this post, which is about 
generational parallels.  I know we don't know much about Lily, 
but from the little we've gathered, she sounds very similar to 
Hermione.  All we've been given to work with was that she was 
Head Girl, though Hagrid did allude to similarities in Book II after 
Malfoy called Hermione a "mudblood," when he's telling the trio 
that birth doesn't matter... he recalls Harry's mother, and then in 
his next sentence remarks that there's not a smell invented yet 
that Hermione can't do.  <snip more excellent commentary about the similarities between Lily & Hermione>

I don't recall anyone ever picking up on this point before, and I'm terribly pleased to see this comparison made.  Hermione's my favorite character, and this is definitely a new facet to her character to consider.  I've always thought that Lily will be another strong female character in the Potterverse once we learn more about her, and you've definitely picked up on a good point to add to the mix at this stage in the series.  I especially like the way you've picked up on the Charms connection between these two characters.  Interesting, very interesting.  I've never been able to see the Ginny/Lily parallels myself, since they are strictly & superficially physical as best we know right now.  Well, there's no canon evidence that Ginny is an above-average student, let alone a brilliant one & she's definitely not muggle-born (so .... I must be missing it if there's anything beyond they both have red hair).  But, yes, aside from knowing that Lily was Head Girl (which indicates at least above-average marks I would think), you quite correctly point out Hagrid's connection of Hermione with Lily with respect to talent & muggle-born status.  

I too hope that we'll meet the Grangers in greater detail sometime.  

Now, on to your interesting observation about the parallel between Harry and James being too obvious.  I like this very much too.  I have always liked the parallel between Harry & James -- I think Harry is identifying with James increasingly with each book.  I find those scenes to be particularly emotionally strong.  BUT, you certainly raise some *excellent* points of comparison between Harry and Lupin.  That's really good stuff.  I'm not so sure that noone has ever commented on this, but it isn't a commonly drawn parallel, that's for certain.

I would note though that we don't know that James & Lily were Head Boy & Head Girl in the same year.  It's implied to some extent, but it's certainly left vague enough that it wouldn't be shocking if they were in different years.  

<<<<<<<<But I definitely think Ginny Weasley being a parallel for Lily Potter is a red herring (sorry, I couldn't resist),>>>>>

LOL!  

<<<<<<<<<<<I'm actually really hoping Ginny doesn't end up with Harry, because I don't think they'll ever be on an equal footing, and, barring some major change in the next 3 
books, Ginny's so far not had a chance to really get to know 
Harry for who he is and fall in love with that person.>>>>>>>>>>>

Couldn't have said it better myself!  <g>  Oh, I have said that before?  Hmm...yeah, I bet I have.  Seriously, I do think it's *possible* for Ginny to be Harry's equal partner & for her to fall in love with who he is as a person rather than a celebrity, but she's certainly not there yet.  I almost think it would require Ginny to be taken in as a 4th member of the Trio for her to assume the same kind of relationship to Harry that Hermione currently has.  I think Harry is destined to be romantically paired with someone who can be his equal (Hermione) or someone unconnected to his life at Hogwarts in a post-Voldemort world.  Then again, I hate the whole OBHWF scenario.  :--)

<<<<<<<<<<<<But I don't think generational parallels are a good 
predictor of future events or of who's going to end up with who... 
so far, we've seen Harry go after a girl who most CERTAINLY 
does not resemble his mother either physically or personality 
wise>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Exactly!  

Again, welcome Columbiatexan ..... your stateroom is ready & waiting anytime!  <g>

Penny


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Fri Apr  5 20:26:04 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 20:26:04 -0000
Subject: the term "wench" was Re: HP and rules
In-Reply-To: <a8ju9b+78mi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8l18s+ihn1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37480

Ali wrote:

"Given that Harry is English, even if he's being read by an 
American audience it doesn't feel quite right to have him use a 
word so utterly wrong for an English boy to say in that context. I 
find it strange that Scholastic can expect their audience to 
understand the idiosyncrasies of prefects/ Head Boys etc etc, but 
then make Harry speak "American"!"

I totally agree.  One of my enormous disappointments when I 
first started reading the HP series to my son was that they had 
been "translated".  Our languages are not that different for pete's 
sake, and I think it is *good* for our kids to be exposed to the 
differences in slang, structure and dialect.  He handled The Wind 
in the Willows fine and Peter Pan (although we omitted "silly 
ass" when reading it to him, lol).  I think I recall quickly switching 
"wench" to "witch" when I read that particular phrase in GoF 
alound to him,( which had no insult quality to it, given the context 
lol) and just left out the "damn's" all together, because there are 
just some certain words that I am not eager to introduce into a 
1st grader's vocabulary. 

But, all in all, I think we're being cheated over here by the 
assumption that we, or our children, can't handle the different 
meanings in words or different phrases.  Give us a break, idiots 
wouldn't be reading HP anyway!

Rita 






From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Fri Apr  5 21:00:53 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:00:53 -0000
Subject: Generational Parallels
In-Reply-To: <003a01c1dcdf$f5752f40$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a8l3a5+vafd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37481

Columbiatexan:
> <<<<<<<<<<<<But I don't think generational parallels are a good 
> predictor of future events or of who's going to end up with who... 
> so far, we've seen Harry go after a girl who most CERTAINLY 
> does not resemble his mother either physically or personality 
> wise>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

and Penny:
> 
> Exactly!  
> 
me too.

I think it is interesting the way these parallels are raised in the 
books.  Dumbledore tells Harry that James' relationship to Snape was 
similar to Harry's with Draco, but he is not saying they must follow 
the same path (I couldn't say whether this is meant to be trailing 
a 'redemption' for Draco).  McGonagall mentions Neville as like 
Pettigrew in the pub: but that seems to be the limit of the parallel 
as Neville makes no attempt to be part of Harry's group, assuming we 
can believe Sirius' somewhat biased characterisation of Pettigrew.

But the one person who deliberately draws a parallel and wonders if 
there is any truth in it is Tom Riddle.  The 'strange likenesses' 
that he sees between himself and Harry interest and possibly unnerve 
him.  As someone for whom his descent from Slytherin is important, it 
is one of his vulnerabilities that he tries to read the future in the 
form of the past, rather than (as JKR continually emphasises) 
learning the lessons of the past to face the unknown future better.

David




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Fri Apr  5 21:03:41 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:03:41 -0000
Subject: Generational Parallels H/H vs. H/R Grendlewald/TR
In-Reply-To: <003a01c1dcdf$f5752f40$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a8l3fd+v6q2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37482

There has been some speculation that Ron may go to the Dark Side.  
I doubt it, but something that might do it could be H/H, if Ron 
were interested in Hermione, himself. (a' la LOLLIPOPS?)  So, Ron
does the snape thing in the next generation?

Rowling may not be doing generations so much as cycles.  Ever 
since I noticed that D'dore defeated Grindlewald in 1945, **which 
was TR's seventh year at Hogwarts,** I've wondered if something
were cyclical here.  We only know D'dore "defeated" Grendlewald,
but we don't know if he died, or what.  Did TR give his live body
to Grindlewald?  Did Grin get Sqibified? Is he Filch?

Grin would have had followers, possibly in hiding.  These might be 
the dark wizards TR sought out after leaving Hogwarts, to become
LV.  So, while Harry sees LV,  D'dore is seeing Grendlewald, his
old nemesis.


Tex





From jmmears at prodigy.net  Fri Apr  5 21:21:02 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:21:02 -0000
Subject: the term "wench" was Re: HP and rules
In-Reply-To: <a8ju9b+78mi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8l4fu+t2ot@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37483

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" <Ali at z...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:


> > deafness" in Hagrid's hut where Harry calls Rita Skeeter a 
wench...

Ali wrote:
> 
> Does the US edition really call Skeeter a "wench"? in the UK


I don't know which edition of GofF Finwitch has, but the American 
edition definitely says:""You don't think anything that Skeeter cow--
sorry, Professor," he added quickly, looking at Dumbledore." 
I agree completely that *nothing* should be changed from the British 
text to the American editions.  Even if there are a few unfamiliar 
terms, their meanings are usually easily deciphered by reading in 
context.  We really aren't *that* stupid.

Jo Serenadust, building her own "compare and contrast" library of US 
and UK editions 




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 21:43:50 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:43:50 -0000
Subject: the term "wench" was Re: HP and rules
In-Reply-To: <a8l18s+ihn1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8l5qn+v99o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37484

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ritadear2" <ritadarling at i...> wrote:
> I think I recall quickly switching "wench" to "witch" when I read 
> that particular phrase in GoF aloud 

Um, not to burst anyone's bubble, but the word in the US edition 
is "cow" as well, so I'm afraid it was impossible that you 
read "witch" for "wench" when no "wench" is in this scene.  

The US version of GoF, page 453:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Of course we still want to know you!" Harry said, staring at 
Hagrid.  "You don't think anything that Skeeter cow--sorry 
Professor," he added quickly, looking at Dumbledore.

"I have gone temporarily deaf and haven't any idea what you said, 
Harry," said Dumbledore, twiddling his thumbs and staring at the 
ceiling.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The passage is identical in my son's copy (with the wand-order 
mistake) and in my daughter's (corrected wand-order).  The same 
passage also appears, word-for-word, on pages 393-394 of the UK 
version.  This whole thing is a tempest in a teacup inasmuch as the 
word "wench" quite simply doesn't appear in either English-language 
version of the book.  (I am to understand that the Canadian, 
Australian and New Zealand versions are the same as the UK version.)
If one goes to this page of the Harry Potter Lexicon, you will see 
that it also isn't listed as one of the differences between the US 
and UK versions: 

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/differences-gf.html

Since Finwitch started all this, perhaps it's possible that she read 
an edition of the book in Finnish and went to an English/Finnish 
dictionary which translated whichever Finnish word was used 
for "cow" as "wench."  (Since it was meant to be an insult specific 
to women.)  This is the most likely explanation, I think.  

Fear not; Harry hasn't yet taken to speaking like a pirate (shipping 
jokes aside...<g>).

--Barb
(Ahoy there!)





From siskiou at earthlink.net  Fri Apr  5 21:55:10 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:55:10 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and the Polyjuice potion + Hermione as Mary Sue
In-Reply-To: <a8jq3b+iopo@eGroups.com>
References: <a8jq3b+iopo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <927180232.20020405135510@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37485



Hi,

Friday, April 05, 2002, 1:17:31 AM, uncmark wrote:

> The term 'ulterior' motive brings to mind something hidden or 
> sinister. Hermione's character, being complex, had several 
> motivations. Let's pick them apart.

I didn't have anything sinister in mind when using the term
sinister.

To me it read like intense curiosity on Hermione's part.
As if she really wanted to find out about the makings and
workings of the polyjuice potion and was happy to have found
a way of doing this *and* thereby doing some good, too.

I like Hermione, but don't see her as the perfect character
who never does anything selfish, ever.

Also, I wanted to respond to somebody who mentioned that
Hermione is JKR's Mary Sue and therefore safe from death in
the books.
Unfortunately I couldn't find that post and don't know who
wrote it.

Anyway, a lot of the "Mary Sues" I have come across *do*
die heroic deaths to save the hero (after almost every male
character falls in love or at least admires this perfect
creature <g>).
It seems to be either heroic death or marriage to the hero
for most Mary Sues.

Hm, I'll have to read the books again with the Mary Sue
filter on.
Hermione's name fits, but the buck teeth and bushy hair
don't.
Although now the her teeth are perfect and she does manage
to change into a gorgeous knock out for the ball.

Maybe I won't look into the Mary Sue tendencies too much,
because it could taint my view of Hermione :)

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Fri Apr  5 22:09:38 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:09:38 -0000
Subject: The Sleeping Woman
In-Reply-To: <a8kthd+nq6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8l7b2+o627@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37486

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> David wrote:
> 
> >>We have from time to time here discussed a number of 
> issues that I believe are related:
> -             Ginny's character is undeveloped;
> -             Lily has received far less treatment than James
> -             There is dissatisfaction among some listies with the 
way 
> women are presented in general in HP.
> 
> I believe the common thread is that JKR has been suppressing 
> femininity in the books, because this side of Harry's character, 
or 
> rather, of the reader's perception of themselves, is yet to 
> develop.<<


Pippin wrote:

> I would say it is not femininity which is being suppressed but 
> sexuality, both because explicit sexual content would be out of 
> keeping with the tone of the books and because this part of 
> Harry's psyche has not yet developed. Harry relates to females 
> as splintered, incomplete aspects of the mother he has lost, as 
> symbolized by the M in many of their names. He represses his 
> awareness of  their sexuality as much as he can. He seems to 
> wish his thoughts about Cho would just go away.  It is only at the 
> very end of GoF that he allows himself to enjoy the feeling he 
> gets while watching Fleur in the distance. 


Pippin, this post was just brilliant.  I've never really thought 
that there was a problem with the many undeveloped female characters 
because, of course Harry as an adolescent boy can not really be 
expected to really understand enough about them to do them justice 
up to this point.  I seriously doubt that he ever even knew any 
girls before meeting Hermione.  He has a long, long way to go before 
he's ready to deal with them as anything other than friends, and had 
Hermione not practically forced her way into his and Ron's 
friendship, he probably wouldn't have even spoken to any of them 
(except possibly Ginny) before GofF. 

Pippin again:
> However, as many have noticed, sexuality is not absent from the 
> novels. Instead, it is disguised. Using the traditional symbols of 
> fairy tales, such as toads and magical trances, Rowling deals 
> with sexual development in a non-threatening way. Consider  
> Hermione's first appearance in PS/SS. She arrives with Neville 
> under her wing, in search of a lost toad. Freudians will not need 
> to be told that the toad in fairy tales is a symbol of sexual 
> relations (Bettelheim, The Uses of Enchantment.)  In fairy tale 
> language, the toad is the part of Hermione's sexuality that is 
> "lost", ie not yet developed. As in the many tales where the toad, 
> or frog, becomes a handsome prince,  this little episode teaches 
> how what might  seem ugly and repulsive may be transformed 
> by love into something highly desireable. 
> 
> Hermione is far more comfortable with the nurturing aspects of 
> her femininity.  She exercises her maternal skills on  various 
> orphaned characters: Neville, Harry, Hagrid,  and Winky.  It is 
> interesting that Ron resists her attempts to mother him, and  that 
> she in turn accepts a date with Viktor Krum knowing that school 
> loyalty will forbid her to indulge her coaching instincts.


I really must read Bettelheim; I had never heard of the toad 
symbolism before.  I wonder if JKR really had that in mind when she 
wrote this (I also wonder if Tabouli's acronym generator would 
explode if it had to come up with one for this theory. TOADKEEPER, 
indeed!)
I've written before that I feel that Hermione is extremely maternal 
in her treatment of all the boys.  Ron resists, I think in part 
because he alone (of the males you've listed), has been thoroughly 
mothered in real life and doesn't need her for all that. I agree 
that it's interesting that she accepts a date with Krum, whom she 
cannot really mother.  I've never quite been able to fathom what 
Krum was doing in fancying her, though.  Perhaps all those fangirls 
were just too scary for the athletically brilliant but socially 
backward Krum.

More Pippin:
> Ginny, on the other hand, does not assume a maternal role 
> toward Harry (nor does she carry the ubiquitous M). I agree that 
> her immaturity and neediness are echoes of Harry's own and 
> that we will see her grow out of them just as Harry has.  Her 
> rescue may be seen as Harry rescuing his own feminine side, 
> but also as a symbolic defeat of Harry's sexual fears as 
> embodied in the traditional Serpent.
> 
>  As Harry grows into adulthood, his need for a surrogate mother 
> may diminish and he may come to desire a romantic rather than 
> nurturing relationship with a female friend. The Oedipal need to 
> separate his yearning for a mother from his sexual desires 
> might actually drive him away from Hermione at that point, 
> although her  kiss at the end of GoF may signal her desire to 
> have things otherwise.


Maybe this is why a romantic relationship between Harry and Hermione 
has always seemed to be so violently *wrong* somehow.  It seems that 
a mature Harry would not be able to romantically connect with such a 
maternal/domineering type.  I've never been one to believe that 
males *really* want to marry their mothers ;-).

I'm confident that in the remaining books, we will get much more 
interesting information concerning the currently underdeveloped 
female characters.  I really think that once we have the series as a 
whole, we'll be even more impressed with JK as a writer as the arc 
of the overall story is revealed.

Thanks, Pippin for one of the best posts I've seen recently.

Jo Serenadust




From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 22:11:20 2002
From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:11:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and the Polyjuice potion + Hermione as Mary Sue
In-Reply-To: <927180232.20020405135510@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20020405221120.82503.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37487


 My reply is below
  Susanne <siskiou at earthlink.net> wrote: 


Hi,

Friday, April 05, 2002, 1:17:31 AM, uncmark wrote:

> The term 'ulterior' motive brings to mind something hidden or 
> sinister. Hermione's character, being complex, had several 
> motivations. Let's pick them apart.

I didn't have anything sinister in mind when using the term
sinister.

To me it read like intense curiosity on Hermione's part.
As if she really wanted to find out about the makings and
workings of the polyjuice potion and was happy to have found
a way of doing this *and* thereby doing some good, too.

I like Hermione, but don't see her as the perfect character
who never does anything selfish, ever.

Also, I wanted to respond to somebody who mentioned that
Hermione is JKR's Mary Sue and therefore safe from death in
the books.
Unfortunately I couldn't find that post and don't know who
wrote it.

Anyway, a lot of the "Mary Sues" I have come across *do*
die heroic deaths to save the hero (after almost every male
character falls in love or at least admires this perfect
creature <g>).
It seems to be either heroic death or marriage to the hero
for most Mary Sues.

Hm, I'll have to read the books again with the Mary Sue
filter on.
Hermione's name fits, but the buck teeth and bushy hair
don't.
Although now the her teeth are perfect and she does manage
to change into a gorgeous knock out for the ball.

Maybe I won't look into the Mary Sue tendencies too much,
because it could taint my view of Hermione :)

-- 
Best regards,
Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net

Okay here is why I DON'T think Hermione is a Mary Sue.  I think Hermione did change her looks for the ball yes, I'll give you that but I mean what girl doesn't want to be pretty?  LOL  I mean she just wanted to look great for a change, I think it was endearing and not annoying.  Also, Hermione is annoying *at times*, she tells the boys what to do *often*, she is intelligent, she has oppinions.  And she doesn't follow Harry (or Ron) like a puppy dog.  LOL  Therefore I dont' think she meets the qualifications of being a Mary Sue



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  5 22:30:05 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:30:05 -0000
Subject: Who is Mary Sue?
In-Reply-To: <20020405221120.82503.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a8l8hd+v1gf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37488

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Melanie Brackney <ilovbrian_99 at y...> wrote:

>   Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote: 

> Also, I wanted to respond to somebody who mentioned that
> Hermione is JKR's Mary Sue and therefore safe from death in
> the books. Unfortunately I couldn't find that post and don't know 
> who wrote it.
> 
> Anyway, a lot of the "Mary Sues" I have come across *do*
> die heroic deaths to save the hero (after almost every male
> character falls in love or at least admires this perfect
> creature.
> It seems to be either heroic death or marriage to the hero
> for most Mary Sues.

I don't know where this line of reasoning started, but what book did 
I miss? Who's Mary Sue?

Personally, I wouldn't object to Hermione hooking up with another 
main character, as long as she kept her intelligence and strength. I 
see her as complementing Ron's personality more than Harry's (As far 
as Draco, the thought of Hermione with a 1-dimensional racist DE 
spawn makes me want to die of terminal vomit)




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Fri Apr  5 22:20:45 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:20:45 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and the Polyjuice potion + Hermione as Mary Sue
In-Reply-To: <20020405221120.82503.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20020405221120.82503.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1768715412.20020405142045@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37489



Hi,

Friday, April 05, 2002, 2:11:20 PM, Melanie wrote:

> I didn't have anything sinister in mind when using the term
> sinister.

<LOL> Of course I meant "when using the term ulterior" <g>

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Fri Apr  5 22:42:14 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:42:14 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is Mary Sue?
In-Reply-To: <a8l8hd+v1gf@eGroups.com>
References: <a8l8hd+v1gf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <12910004297.20020405144214@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37490



Hi,

Friday, April 05, 2002, 2:30:05 PM, uncmark wrote:

> Who's Mary Sue?

"Mary Sue" is generally a stand in for the author, usually
easily identified by having an unusual name, being almost
perfect in personality and looks (with maybe a couple of
token flaws), all knowing and a central character.

Most other characters love and admire/protect her and in
many stories (especially in fanfiction) the character dies a
heroic death at the end, saving the hero/world, or does the
saving without dying and "gets" the male hero.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com  Fri Apr  5 22:32:42 2002
From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (scaryfairymary)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:32:42 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, a relative of Harry's?
In-Reply-To: <a8hs2v+53ij@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8l8ma+9gr8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37491

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mrflynn6" <mrflynn6 at y...> wrote:
> I posted this a while ago, when the site was acting up, and it 
never 
> got posted so I am trying again.
> 
> I have been thinking about Harry/Dumbledore again.  I still think 
> that Harry is related to him somehow.  There have been a few 
> arguments about the safety zone/Harry's relatives and how could 
> Voldermort get to Harry at school if Dumbledore was a relative.  
> Well, if you think about it, Harry was safe when Dumbledore was at 
> school, HOWEVER, in SS, Dumbledore was called to London on MoM 
> business when Harry met Voldermort, in CoS, Dumbledore was removed 
> from the school by the Board of Governers and was off grounds and 
in 
> GoF, Harry was transported to the graveyard so Harry was not at 
> Hogwarts.  Is it possible that since Dumbledore would have to take 
> Harry everywhere he went if Harry lived with him as a young child, 
> that sending him to the Dursley's was the only real possibility?
> 
Wow, thats the first explanation that actually fits!  I always had a 
problem with the fact that Dumbledore left Harry with the Dursleys 
because I *really* do believe that they are related.  I remember 
reading somewhere in the series that Dumbledore had auburn hair when 
he was younger, and IIRC Harry's mother had auburn hair in the mirror 
of Erised.  Im not 100% sure and it's not a very strong link to go on 
bet hey... it's one of my favourite theories!!

> Also when Harry goes to Dumbledore's office for the first time, he 
> mentions that the doorknocker was a Gryffin.  Dumbledore also is in 
> possession of Gryffindor's Sword.  Could Dumbledore also be a 
> desecendent of Gryffindor?  
>
I also thought this at one stage, but I think that it might be just a 
thing that all the Hogwarts headmasters automatically inherit certain 
heirlooms from the founders.  OTOH, I do believe that there is a 
connection between DUmbledore/Harry/Tom Riddle/Salazar Slytherin.  
I'm not sure how yet, but all will be revieled...mwahaha!!

-Mary- 




From Brwneil at aol.com  Fri Apr  5 22:02:42 2002
From: Brwneil at aol.com (Brwneil at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:02:42 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and the Polyjuice potion + Hermione as Mary ...
Message-ID: <19a.3aa861.29df7902@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37492

In a message dated 4/5/2002 4:57:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
siskiou at earthlink.net writes:


> 
> Although now the her teeth are perfect and she does manage
> to change into a gorgeous knock out for the ball.
> 
> 

Krum evidently saw something special in Hermione that Ron and Harry were 
missing.  After all, Krum is famous, a seventh year and 18.  Hermione is a 
muggle-born in her fourth year and only 15.

Neil


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Fri Apr  5 23:14:37 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 23:14:37 -0000
Subject: The Sleeping Woman/Hermione
In-Reply-To: <00cf01c1dc47$55d81da0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a8lb4t+mt1u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37493

Laura Huntley wrote:

>  What is wrong with Hermione as a feminine portrayal, anyway?

I think I should hasten to say that I don't think Hermione is 
portrayed as unfeminine, assuming one accepts the concept of 
femininity at all.  So my answer to that is 'nothing'.

I agree it is a weakness in my exposition that I have not 
really 'placed' Hermione.  My post was influenced in part by 
Grynbaum's essay (Gail A. Grynbaum, "The secrets of Harry Potter," 
San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal 19.4 (2001): 17-48 
<http://www.cgjungpage.org/articles/grynbaumpotter.html>. ), and she 
suggests that Hermione is s Soror Mystica - make of that what you 
will.
> 
> Furthermore, she's not "sleeping" as Ginny is.  Her character is 
multi-faceted and a major part of the story.  Not only that, but she 
is, as a person, fiercely intelligent, strong, hardworking, loyal, 
and absolutely ruthless when need be.  Again, I ask:  What more do 
you people *want* in a heroine, anyway?

I should also say that I did not intend to imply that Ginny is meant 
to be 'the' heroine or that Hermione is in some way defective.

> On a side note, I would like to add that although I am not 
particularly happy with it, I do believe that if JKR intends to pair 
people off in the future books, the pairs will most likely be H/G and 
R/Hr.  I don't like it, but from the way Jo's writing at this point, 
that's my prediction.

May I ask what is the basis for this prediction?  I ask because 
sometimes avid shippers get accused of a degree of wishful thinking, 
so it's refreshing to hear someone make a prediction they don't like.

> I am female.  Therefore, everything I do is, by definition, 
feminine.  But another female's version of femininity is just as 
valid for her.  Same thing goes for you guys.  We're all crazy, 
whacked-out individuals.  There is no norm -- neither are there any 
set definitions for "femininity" or "masculinity".  

Now this is an interesting question in its own right: is there such a 
thing as femininity or masculinity outside what individual men and 
women are and do? - answers to OT.

and: What do we discern in HP about the meaning of gender? Does JKR 
encourage or discourage stereotypical views of gender behaviour and 
roles?  OK, we have discussed this before but it's always worth 
another crack.

> >The fact that Ginny is said to talk a lot until 
> >Harry's presence subdues her is an intriguing 
> >indication.
> 
> You don't think that maybe (just maybe) you might be reading a 
little bit to much into a little girl's reaction to a boy she has a 
crush on?  

Well, I do admit it is a very symbolic reading, and the trouble with 
symbols is that an awful lot of reader choice goes into deciding 
which bits to take as symbols and more goes into deciding what you 
think the symbols mean.  So, yes, it is balancing a biggish object on 
a smallish base.  Which suggests another mischievous question:

Does the use of Exploding Snap to build a house of cards show that 
JKR is aware of HPFGU and is, in fact, obliquely referring to the, 
er, delicate gossamer constructs of the imagination that we 
call 'canon-based discussion'?

David




From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com  Fri Apr  5 23:42:11 2002
From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (scaryfairymary)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 23:42:11 -0000
Subject: Percy -- Cho 
In-Reply-To: <029001c1dbfc$7fb08180$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a8lcoj+vec1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37494

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
> Hi everyone --
> 
> Wow!  I'm overwhelmed with all the great discussions we've been 
having & am sorry to be jumping in a bit late on a few things.  
> 
> PERCY: 
>  Mary (who also said Percy *Had* to be EVIL) said:
<<<<<I really havn't been able to warm to his character at all (not 
> for lack of trying!) He really is very very power hungry ("Prefects 
> Who Gained Power") and I don't hold up much hope for his 
redemption.>>>>
> 
> Being ambitious or seeking power isn't *evil* though.  Plenty of 
people are highly ambitious & motivated for very good reasons.  
Perhaps Percy has a sweeping vision for vast reforms in the Wizarding 
World society if he achieves his goal of becoming Minister of Magic 
(I believe he intimates that he has ideas for changes at one point in 
the series).  Being power-hungry solely for the *status,* albeit not 
particularly praise-worthy, hardly constitutes *evil* though.  
> 

 Perhaps I wasn't clear here.  What I was getting at really, was that 
he will, IMO, be completely blinded by this hunger and be unable 
to "see the wood through the trees" so to speak, when it comes to the 
battle between good and evil in the Ministry during OoP.

 
> As for redemption, why does Percy need to be *redeemed*?  He's not 
a bad, evil person.  He's a good guy with some flaws (like most of 
us) IMO.>

 Well really I was thinking that he would be redeemed in my eyes 
only.  As in, how I will be able to finally convince my gut instinct 
that he is indeed *not* evil.   
 

> <<<<From his sheep like following of Crouch Sr. to his mere lack of 
> ability to 'let his hair down' he really hasn't shown any ability 
to 
> survive in the real world, let alone in a war situation.>>>>>
> 
>> The ability/desire to "let one's hair down" is a prerequisite for 
a 
successful life?  Hmmm...


 Well I do believe that this ability is essential for a balanced and 
*healthy* life, but I didn't say succesful.  IMO, Someone with this 
ability indicates that they are an emotionally healthy individual.  
Perhaps if Percy was capable of "letting his hair down" I would be 
more convinced of his stability andhis ability not to be lured/duped 
into doing evil.  
It's possible also that I would find him to be a more likable 
character in general.

  
> 
> RED HERRING: Barb and John both commented that it strikes them as 
too "pat" for Percy to be duped into unwitting betrayal of the Good 
Guys as a result of his ambition.  I agree.  I tend to think that 
Percy is meant to mislead us into this conclusion.  The subtle 
evidence of Percy's concern for his family points, IMO, to Percy not 
becoming a pawn of the Dark Side.  I think Ron's remarks are meant to 
set up this very thing (red herring).  But then, I have another 
Weasley in mind as likely candidate for becoming an unwitting pawn of 
the forces of Evil so ....
> 

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that JKR is using 
Percy as a Red Herring or that it would be too predictable if he 
became a pawn for V.  I think the general concensus is that Percy 
is , underneath it all, a likable character (not my opinion of 
course) so I think that to make him go over to th Dark Side would 
really be quite a shocker for most people.  

 
> CHO --
> 
> Uncmark: "If Harry had been a little quicker and asked first, I 
think Cho would have accepted his invite  to the Yule Ball."
> 
> Rita: "I'm sure she would have, too.  She seemed genuinely 
disappointed that he asked after she had already accepted Cedric's 
invitation."
> 
> I maintain that she was sorry to disappoint Harry & was very kind 
in turning him down, but that is not at all the same thing as being 
sorry that she had already accepted Cedric's invitation.  It seems 
*highly* unlikely to me that she would have continued to date Cedric 
& develop a relationship with him after the Yule Ball if she were 
wishing, pre-Ball, that she could have been free to go with someone 
else (Harry).  I also think it's pretty likely that Harry just 
didn't notice that there was a developing (or even long-standing) 
relationship between Cedric & Cho prior to the Yule Ball (there's no 
evidence for this of course ... but we've seen that Harry doesn't 
always *see* everything in clear detail).  He notices them holding 
hands in the corridors after the Ball ... but it's at least possible 
this was going on beforehand but Harry only had eyes for Cho.  In 
any case, the Yule Ball was definitely more than a one-time date for 
Cedric & Cho, and it stands to reason that she had some romantic 
interest in him before the Ball for things to have developed as they 
did afterwards.  IMO of course.  :--)>>>
 
  Yes, this is a possibility.  Cho and Cedric *did* seem very close, 
but then it is possible to  like more than one person at a time.  Not 
to ship here but.... Harry and Cho would be soooo very very cute! 
As for Cho being disappointed at having to let Harry down, the same 
explanation could be used for her and Cedric's post ball 
relationship... she simply didn't want to let him down, especially 
during the tournament.

-Mary-




From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Fri Apr  5 23:56:02 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 23:56:02 -0000
Subject: the term "wench" was Re: HP and rules
In-Reply-To: <a8l5qn+v99o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8ldii+ukh3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37495

"Um, not to burst anyone's bubble, but the word in the US edition 
is "cow" as well, so I'm afraid it was impossible that you 
read "witch" for "wench" when no "wench" is in this scene. "

Oops, please forgive my error!  Was there another place?  I 
remember subsituting "witch" for something.  Ugh.  Now I'm all 
confused.  

Rita

 
> 
> The US version of GoF, page 453:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "Of course we still want to know you!" Harry said, staring at 
> Hagrid.  "You don't think anything that Skeeter cow--sorry 
> Professor," he added quickly, looking at Dumbledore.
> 
> "I have gone temporarily deaf and haven't any idea what you 
said, 
> Harry," said Dumbledore, twiddling his thumbs and staring at 
the 
> ceiling.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The passage is identical in my son's copy (with the wand-order 
> mistake) and in my daughter's (corrected wand-order).  The 
same 
> passage also appears, word-for-word, on pages 393-394 of 
the UK 
> version.  This whole thing is a tempest in a teacup inasmuch 
as the 
> word "wench" quite simply doesn't appear in either 
English-language 
> version of the book.  (I am to understand that the Canadian, 
> Australian and New Zealand versions are the same as the UK 
version.)
> If one goes to this page of the Harry Potter Lexicon, you will see 
> that it also isn't listed as one of the differences between the US 
> and UK versions: 
> 
> http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/differences-gf.html
> 
> Since Finwitch started all this, perhaps it's possible that she 
read 
> an edition of the book in Finnish and went to an 
English/Finnish 
> dictionary which translated whichever Finnish word was used 
> for "cow" as "wench."  (Since it was meant to be an insult 
specific 
> to women.)  This is the most likely explanation, I think.  
> 
> Fear not; Harry hasn't yet taken to speaking like a pirate 
(shipping 
> jokes aside...<g>).
> 
> --Barb
> (Ahoy there!)





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  6 00:57:58 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 00:57:58 -0000
Subject: Who is Mary Sue?
In-Reply-To: <12910004297.20020405144214@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a8lh6m+jh9r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37496

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Friday, April 05, 2002, 2:30:05 PM, uncmark wrote:
> 
> > Who's Mary Sue?
> 
> "Mary Sue" is generally a stand in for the author, usually
> easily identified by having an unusual name, being almost
> perfect in personality and looks (with maybe a couple of
> token flaws), all knowing and a central character.
> 
> Most other characters love and admire/protect her and in
> many stories (especially in fanfiction) the character dies a
> heroic death at the end, saving the hero/world, or does the
> saving without dying and "gets" the male hero.
> 
I was directed to http://writersu.s5.com/history/marysue.html as it 
had several essays which went into great depth what a Mary Sue is, 

In general Mary Sues grew out of fanfiction and bad scifi and could 
be identified by a few red flags
1. A thinly-veiled fictional version of the author herself 
2. An original character who is the protagonist of the story

Accoding to that site, "Mary Sue" stories are written by new writers 
> whose first idea for a story follow a pattern of self-insertion 
> (acting out their personal fantasy vicariously through an original 
> character), and their "Mary Sue" characters suffer from the 
> following characteristics: 
  
> 1. She's perfect. Literally. Everyone likes her, she can fix the 
> warp core with a bobby pin and a smile regardless of whether or not 
> she's an engineer, she's got an excellent singing voice, and she's 
> psychic too... 

> 2. She's got violet eyes, martial arts training that makes Trinity 
> from The Matrix look like Elmer Fudd, hair down to there, and is 
> usually sleeping with or the daughter of someone we all know and 
> love. 

> 3. She's maverick, headstrong, stubborn, always wins in the end, 
> and always shows "them" how her way is better

Noe IMHO, Hermione's good, but no Mary Sue. If anyone of JKR's 
characters were 'Mary Sue's I'd guess it would be Harry. From 
interviews he was the main character who developed in her mind fully 
formed. His battle with the basilisk reminded me of a friend's D&D 
games where a character with 18+++ Luck beat monsters 10 times his 
size with divine intervention or by finding the +10 pocketknife of 
instant dragon slaying.

Hermione, added later as a complement to Harry and Ron (Wizard-raised 
wizard, muggle-raised wizard, muggle-borne wizard) bprobably has some 
wish-fulfillment for any women. Having her first date at the Yule 
Ball with a champion was a scene right out of Cinderella.

Hermione is nowheres near perfect, but is hardworking and inspired by 
her friends never gives up. She is very bright (How many 11 year olds 
could beat a logic maze?), has learned to apply book knowledge to 
life (Figures out what beast petrifies, could move unseen, and could 
be heard by a parselmouth), and has learned to think unconventionally 
(how could a witch spy magically at Hogwart's?)

As of yet, Hermione has not been tested in battle. She still lacked 
confidence at the end of book 3 when she fell to a boggart, but hey, 
Fleur (a 7th year) fell to a Gringylow!

I think we all owe both Hermione and JKR some respect. That is if 
she'll just HURRY UP AND RELEASE BOOK 5!!!

Uncmark




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Apr  6 01:40:18 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 01:40:18 -0000
Subject: Hermione as Mary Sue
In-Reply-To: <20020405221120.82503.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a8ljm2+i1ho@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37497

Susanne :

> Hm, I'll have to read the books again with the Mary Sue
> filter on. Hermione's name fits, but the buck teeth and bushy 
hair don't.
> Although now the her teeth are perfect and she does manage
> to change into a gorgeous knock out for the ball.
> 
> Maybe I won't look into the Mary Sue tendencies too much,
> because it could taint my view of Hermione :)


Melanie:
> Okay here is why I DON'T think Hermione is a Mary Sue. 
<snip>   Hermione is annoying *at times*, she tells the boys 
what to do *often*, she is intelligent, she has oppinions.  And 
she doesn't follow Harry (or Ron) like a puppy dog.  LOL  
Therefore I dont' think she meets the qualifications of being a 
Mary Sue.<<

As a Mary Sue, Hermione is downright farcical. Four books of 
rock'em sock'em adventure and so far she's singlehandedly, 
um, captured a beetle. <g> I mean, when it comes to saving the 
day, where is she? Out cold, as a rule. A fanfic told from the 
perspective of Hermione as a failed Mary Sue could be hilarious,  
IMO.

Pippin
grinning insanely :-)





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sat Apr  6 01:53:16 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 11:53:16 +1000
Subject: Saucy Senior Crouch, striking Frog Prince/Potterverse parallels...
Message-ID: <000e01c1dd0d$e5e83bc0$9935c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37498

Still not receiving HPFGU email... I think the time has come to start using my alternative account, taboulica at yahoo.com.au, which is a nuisance, as I pay by the minute.  If anyone has sent me any off-list messages in the last three or four days, I won't have got them... try sending them there!

Alas.  All I can do at this juncture is do a quick flick over webview.  Irksome, as there are lots of interesting threads going at the moment, which I can only skim lest I bankrupt myself with dial-in fees.  Nonetheless, TAGS (Tabouli's Acronym Generation Service) is still trying to stay afloat...

Eileen:
> I was very much surprised to discover that most of the code words for Crouch 
Sr. were rather attractive, contrast to Snape who gets the most 
hideous code words in the book. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a 
conscious contrast, indicating beauty is skin deep. Therefore, I 
demand that Tabouli write an acronym demonstrating that Crouch Sr. was 
indeed sexy.<

No doubt the wispy Mrs Crouch dearly loved her serve of C.R.A.B. C.U.S.T.A.R.D. (Classy, Rich, Ambitious, Bold: Crouch's Unsung Sexiness Tempts All Raunchy Damsels)


Jo Serenadust:
> I really must read Bettelheim; I had never heard of the toad 
symbolism before. I wonder if JKR really had that in mind when she 
wrote this (I also wonder if Tabouli's acronym generator would 
explode if it had to come up with one for this theory. TOADKEEPER, 
indeed!)<

Raising a lofty eyebrow, Tabouli confidently feeds Pippin's excellent post into her acronym generator.  Within seconds it is declaring Neville's sleazy amphibian pet a T.R.A.S.H.Y. S.L.I.M.E.B.A.L.L. (Trevor Represents A Sexuality Hidden, Yawning Seductively, Lost In Maternal Empathy But Always Lazily Lingering).

>From memory, the toad/frog as sexual symbol is an interpretation of the plot of the "Frog Prince", a fairytale that always worried me.  Sure, I can buy the ball business.  Innocent young princess drops golden ball into a well (oo er), and out comes the frog who says she now owes him and wants to sup at her table and sleep in her bed (in retrospect, the symbolism isn't exactly subtle, is it?).  Her parents, recognising that she needs to attain womanhood and produce an heir or something, agree (bit troubling, this), she's revolted, can't eat, can't cope with him entering her chambers under her parents' sanction and demanding a kiss.  So what happens then?  She hurls the poor toad against the wall!!  And is *rewarded* for this violence by him turning into a handsome prince!!

What are we teaching our children here?

Is this a promotion of sadism, or is hurling the frog against the wall symbolic of the er, banging she suddenly realises she enjoys?  None of this coy kissing stuff for our princess, O no, she gets right down to business and takes control.

Then let's shift our eye from Grimm to Rowling.  Instead of a princess, we have Neville, face round like a ball, accompanied by a crone, bereft of mother.  Lurid sexual imagery ensues!  Neville steps aboard the long, red train (which no doubt symbolically passes through tunnels and the like on the way to Hogwarts) and promptly loses his... toad.  As if by magic, who should turn up to help him find it but a maiden, namely Hermione!  She, of course, promptly adopts the role of the missing mother, and they set out together through the train in search of Trevor.  For several years the maiden assumes the role of mother, helping him with his schoolwork, protecting him from the cruel hard world.

Puts the whole scene with Snape threatening to poison Trevor in a new and lascivious light, doesn't it?  The ageing Snape looks on Neville, with an, er, active, flourishing young toad in his pocket, with a harsh and jealous eye.  He tries to assert his continued dominance, by using Neville's... potion to cut off the, er, toad's life.  Only with the help of a maiden does Neville produce his potion with sufficient skill to save his toad (shameless, that JKR, just shameless).

Of course, all good Oedipus complexes must come to an end, and we see Neville learn this hard lesson in GoF, when he asks the maiden-mother to... the Ball.  Alas, the maiden-mother of course refuses, because she is already bound to an older man (Neville's symbolic absent father?).  Sad and abandoned by his mother once more, Neville and his toad turn to Ginny, a true maiden, unsullied by maternal instincts, and together they attend the Ball, Neville crushing her toes to release her inner beautiful princess just as the princess cast the frog against the wall to release the inner handsome prince...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sat Apr  6 01:47:42 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:47:42 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  Hermione as Mary Sue
In-Reply-To: <a8ljm2+i1ho@eGroups.com>
References: <a8ljm2+i1ho@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2421134149.20020405174742@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37499



Hi,

Friday, April 05, 2002, 5:40:18 PM, pippin_999 wrote:

> As a Mary Sue, Hermione is downright farcical. Four books of 
> rock'em sock'em adventure and so far she's singlehandedly, 
> um, captured a beetle. <g>

Well, I don't really think Hermione is a Mary Sue, and
hopefully she won't develop into one in the later books
(when *is* the next one coming out?), but JKR is also not a
young, beginning writer like the ones who are supposedly the
people who fall into the Mary Sue trap easily.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From dicentra at xmission.com  Sat Apr  6 01:34:03 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 01:34:03 -0000
Subject: The Sleeping Woman
In-Reply-To: <a8kthd+nq6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8ljab+f07n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37500

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> 
> However, as many have noticed, sexuality is not absent from the 
> novels. Instead, it is disguised. Using the traditional symbols of 
> fairy tales, such as toads and magical trances, Rowling deals 
> with sexual development in a non-threatening way. Consider  
> Hermione's first appearance in PS/SS. She arrives with Neville 
> under her wing, in search of a lost toad. Freudians will not need 
> to be told that the toad in fairy tales is a symbol of sexual 
> relations (Bettelheim, The Uses of Enchantment.)  In fairy tale 
> language, the toad is the part of Hermione's sexuality that is 
> "lost", ie not yet developed. As in the many tales where the toad, 
> or frog, becomes a handsome prince,  this little episode teaches 
> how what might  seem ugly and repulsive may be transformed 
> by love into something highly desireable. 
> 

Hmmmm....  I wonder.  I'm familiar with the Freudian interpretation of
frog-as-sexuality, but there are some elements missing from HP that
are present in the fairy tails on which the interpretation of the frog
motif is is based.

The most familiar frog-as-sexuality tale is the one where the princess
accidentally loses a golden ball in a deep pool.  A talking frog
offers to retreive it for her but only on the condition that she adopt
him as a pet.  She agrees, and once the frog gets the ball, he insists
on eating from her plate and sleeping on her pillow.  She is grossed
out by this. There are several versions--does she throw him against
the wall in frustration or does he tell her to kiss him? I don't
remember.  He ends up turning into a prince at the end.

Anyway, the frog represents sexuality in a context where there's a
deep pool of water (the subconscious) and the frog gets personal with
the princess.  Their interactions represent her ambivalence toward
sexuality and her eventual embracing of it.

In HP, Trevor is a toad, not a frog. Toads begin their lives in the
water, but after that they live on dry ground.  Trevor therefore does
not emerge from a deep pool of water (nor is he associated with
water), nor does he get personal with Hermione. JKR has a tendency to
adopt motifs and symbols from the existing collective subconscious (to
get Jungian on you) but she uses them for her own purposes. Given her
education, she has no doubt encountered the method of interpretation
Pippin uses, but does she subscribe to it or not?   

Furthermore, the frog tale and its many avatars were not authored by
anyone in particular (though some authors may have written their own
versions). They tend to spontaneously develop in cultures through the
oral tradition, where the tellers embellish and omit according to
their own fancies. These tales tend to best represent subconscious
processes because they pass through so many hands. 

This in stark contrast to JKR's obsessive five-year planning session.
I have a hard time with the idea that a single author, especially one
who anally keeps track of every thread that goes into her books, has
nonetheless succumbed to Freudian symbolism quite beyond her will.
(Archetypes are another question. Or are they?) 

It may be as erroneous to read Freud into HP as it is to read the
occult into it: the anti-HP folks make a lot of hay out of the fact
that occult symbols show up in HP, but the less hysterical among us
can see that the symbols have been severed at least partly from their
origins and put to new use. I wouldn't put it past her to have
harvested the frog motif and used it in some ironic way (yet to be
revealed) either to poke fun at lit. crit. or to just have a laugh. Or
not. 

Given that I'm not a real fan of Freudian criticism, I'd like to see
these symbols (frog, serpent, mother, M) take on a life of their own
in ironic juxtaposition to their conventional use or be something
entirely unique.

--Dicentra, who can't believe her lit. crit. degree is *useful* 








From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sat Apr  6 02:08:06 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 12:08:06 +1000
Subject: Frog Prince/Potterverse addendum
Message-ID: <001c01c1dd10$0950f3c0$9935c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37501

Actually, let me rephrase the Snape and Trevor scene to reveal that JKR sunk to even greater depths than I suggested there...  Snape does not so much: 

Me:
> (try) to assert his continued dominance, by using Neville's... potion to cut
off the, er, toad's life.<

...he actually casts aspersions on Neville's ability to produce viable potion!!  Yes!  It's right there, in stark black and white!  The older man, expert in potions, expressing his growing insecurity by casting aspersions on the virility of a young blood!  And then sneers that Neville can only produce good potion with the help of a talented young woman!!

Shocking.

JKR is corrupting an entire generation with this filth...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  6 03:20:37 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 03:20:37 -0000
Subject: Give Hermione credit!!! (Was Re: Hermione as Mary Sue)
In-Reply-To: <a8ljm2+i1ho@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8lpi5+5s2b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37502

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> As a Mary Sue, Hermione is downright farcical. Four books of 
> rock'em sock'em adventure and so far she's singlehandedly, 
> um, captured a beetle. <g> I mean, when it comes to saving the 
> day, where is she? Out cold, as a rule. A fanfic told from the 
> perspective of Hermione as a failed Mary Sue could be hilarious,  
> IMO.
> 
> Pippin
> grinning insanely :-)

Insane is right. Let's see, what has Hermione done? As a first year 
(age 11?) she solved a logic puzzle that would confound most adult 
wizards! 

As a second year she solved the mystery of what the beast of the 
chamber was! This confounded the assembled faculty and MoM both 50 
years ago and in book 2. (It's easy for us to guess, but we have the 
benefit of JKR's POV!)

In Book 4 she didn't merely capture a beetle, she deduced Skeeter's 
secret of being an unregistered Magi!!! This is something that had 
been going on for over a decade (remember Rita in the Pensieve vision)
and had caused great problems for a great number of powerful wizards 
from the MoM through Gringotts and a 14 year-old Muggle-borne witch 
did it!

Hermione has been VITAL to success in all four books. Could you 
picture Harry alone discovering the secret of the Sorceror's Stone? 
Or the Chamber's monster? Or learning Accio or Stupify without her 
assistance?

>From what I read about 'Mary Jane's' they are generally both one-
dimensional and too good to be believed. Hermione has SEVERAL levels 
and works for everything she has.

Here's an idea. As Hogwart's is a school with open competition 
between houses, how about an interhouse Wizard's Challenge bowl with 
points equal to the Quiditch Cup? It would be realistic from the 
scholastic aspect and would give Hermione and some of the overlooked 
characters a chance to shine. (Maybe Neville, Ginny, the Creevy 
brothers, etc.

BTW Who do you think will be next year's Gryffindor Quidditch Team?


Uncmark




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Apr  6 04:19:59 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 04:19:59 -0000
Subject: Missing Weasleys // Next year's Gryffindor Quidditch team
Message-ID: <a8lt1f+i147@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37503

Eclipse wrote:

> I have no problem with there being a missing Weasley child to 
> explain the gap. However what was the child that young doing home 
> alone? (If that's where the Dark Mark was.) Where was Molly and the 
> other younger children? 

If Charlie was born in 1967, he might have started at Hogwarts in 
1978, when Percy was maybe 2 years old and the twins were being born. 
So we could have Bill and Charlie away at Hogwarts, Molly busy giving 
birth, 'David' + optional other missing sibling sent to visit one pair 
of grandparents while the other grandmum is keeping Percy out of 
trouble at his own home... and it was the grandparents' house, not 
Arthur's house, that was destroyed with the Dark Mark over it. That 
would account for half the missing grandparents of our Weasleys.

Uncle Mark wrote:

> Who do you think will be next year's Gryffindor Quidditch Team?

I think the only Gryffindor player who needs to be replaced yet is 
Oliver, who was Captain and Keeper. I think Harry will be made 
Captain by acclamation, despite his protests. 

Because I think Ron is a nice kid and I want him to have something 
nice to be happy about, I *hope* Ron will be Keeper (he has the build 
for it) and a *good* one. With a good broomstick, whether provided by 
the school or as a gift from his older brothers. However, if JKR 
wants to pile up the angst on poor Ron, she could have him be beaten 
out in the try-outs for the Keeper position. Possibly by Dean Thomas, 
who also has the right build and is sports-mad (for soccer, but 
perhaps he has added a love of Quidditch: he went to the QWC with 
Seamus). And Dean Thomas is Muggle-born, and despite Ron's lack of 
racism, being beaten out in the wizarding sport by a Muggle-born 
surely would increase his hurt feelings. Possibly by one of the 
hypothetical two more Gryffindor girls in Harry's year; despite the 
relative level of gender equality in the Potterverse, being beaten at 
sports by a *girl* also must be extra unpleasant. Possibly by Ginny, 
who is not only a *girl* and *younger* but also his own sister! 

But they had BETTER start training some reserves, because the *next* 
year, Harry and the new Keeper will be the ONLY returning players. 

I planned out a fanfic about the fourth Gryffindor girl winning the 
try-outs for that Keeper position. She's been fairly unhappy at 
Hogwarts so far, as Hermione despises her anti-intellectualism, 
Parvati and Lavender despise her for being ungracefully tall and 
gawky and looking absurd in fashionable clothes, and the boys 
completely ignore her. But suddenly she turns out to be an MVP Keeper 
and suddenly all the boys are swarming around her like ants to sugar 
and suddenly Lavender and Parvati are trying to get to be her friends. 
I think it would be hysterically funny to watch Lavender and Parvati 
trying desperately to make nice to a girl whom they've treated like 
dirt for four years.




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  6 05:49:14 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 05:49:14 -0000
Subject: Harry Sue? (was Give Hermione credit!!!)
In-Reply-To: <a8lpi5+5s2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8m28q+tfo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37504

Uncmark writes:

<snip examples of Hermione's brilliance>

<<
Hermione has been VITAL to success in all four books.
Could you picture Harry alone discovering the secret
of the Sorceror's Stone? Or the Chamber's monster?
Or learning Accio or Stupify without her assistance?
>>

Assistance is the key word here. The reason Mary Sue
is so hated is that she steals the show annoyingly.
Hermione is overwhelmingly brilliant, sure, but in a
way that's underappreciated by the main cast and
even herself sometimes. Also, she has her enemies
and she's often embarrassed and left without a snappy
comeback (as when Snape reads the Daily Prophet aloud
in Potions). She fights with her friends, too. Nobody
fights with Mary Sue, because even her enemies admire
her, albeit grudgingly.


<<
>From what I read about 'Mary Jane's' they are
generally both one-dimensional and too good to be
believed. Hermione has SEVERAL levels and works for
everything she has.
>>

They don't necessarily have to be one-dimensional;
they can actually be very well written and STILL
completely irritating. In fact, it's usually good
writers who commit the worst Mary Sues, because they
tend to have ideas that make MS worse. For instance,
feeling guilty about making her too perfect, they
give her a cute "flaw" or some kind of "angst." Or
kill her at the end and give her a big funeral.

Now, I don't see Hermione as a Mary Sue, but you
could make a case for Harry. He is occasionally
described in such glowing, reverent terms you just
want to drop a truck on him. (For instance, when
Dumbledore is asking what happened at the end of GoF.)
If he starts giving the Dursleys lip, I'll be
disappointed, because his being downtrodden there
goes a long way towards making him human. I liked his
reflection in GoF that he wishes his friends could
see The Boy That Lived all sweaty and gross and
covered in fertilizer. ...or was that PoA? I'm, uh,
pretty sure I'm not confusing canon with fanon....

In any case, while I personally don't think Harry is
irritating enough to be considered Mary Sue, it could
be argued. More easily than Hermione, even.

--Anna (likes Hermione, darnit!)




From gohana_chan03 at lycos.com  Sat Apr  6 01:43:36 2002
From: gohana_chan03 at lycos.com (Hana - chan)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 18:43:36 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Mary Sue?
Message-ID: <AMAELLAMJAIABCAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37505

Hi, I'm new here, but I thought I'd add my two cents here.  I agree with what you said about Mary Sues -- unless they're deliberately added for humor or effect they're usually pretty bad.  I do have to disagree a bit about Hermione though.  

I don't think that Hermione is a true Mary Sue, but on JKR's A&E Biography she did say that Hermione is the most like she was when she was that age.  She based a lot of Hermione's traits on her own (the sort of "bossy know-it-all" type of personality). I believe that Hermione even looks a bit like JKR did as a child, but I could be wrong on that point.

Overall, I don't think it makes her a true Mary Sue because, like you pointed out, she does have flaws, and she isn't the person who saves the day all of the time, but she is definately based on JKR, and I think that the fact that she's so well written is what saves her from the silliness of typical Mary Sues.

--Hana  





See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  6 03:02:56 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (columbiatexan)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 03:02:56 -0000
Subject: Hermione dying???
Message-ID: <a8loh0+6hga@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37506

Hehe, I don't think so, at least not until the 7th book, when all 
bets are proverbially off.  Everyone's fair game to die in Book 7, 
including Harry himself, but there is a very small group of 
characters that I think will make it until at least that last book, and 
one of 'em is Hermione, but not because she's based on 
Rowling as a child.

To put it very badly, Harry NEEDS Hermione to do the research 
for him; she's his fountain of information, a human Internet/
portable reference.  Actually, I think someone said this before, 
but whenever there's a character based on the author in a novel, 
the character usually ends up dying tragically or being/marrying 
the hero (although how this fits in with, say, To Kill A Mockingbird 
is beyond me).  I think one thing we've all learned by now is not 
to expect Rowling to do things that have been done before--yeah 
we have to be careful not to go overboard with the whole, "It's a 
cliched ending, therefore it's not happening," but I mean, could 
you have honestly predicted 90% of the stuff that's happened so 
far after reading the first book?  I think we all knew Lord 
Voldemort was coming back, but how and all that stuff that 
happened in between?

Hermione's safe not b/c Rowling doesn't want to kill herself, but 
because she's Rowling's way of feeding Harry information, logic, 
reason, and even-tempered thinking.  She's the yin to Harry and 
Ron's yang (or is it the other way around?); Harry and Ron, 
ironically enough, are driven more by emotions, gut feelings and 
instinct, whereas Hermione is driven by logic, a desire to learn 
and understand and use her mind to solve problems.  I suppose 
it's why Ron is so good at chess, because he's probably more 
willing to sacrifice and play recklessly, whereas Hermione 
probably thinks too much to be good at strategy.  I could see a 
whole bunch of endings happening at this point, fewer but still 
quite a number of endings that I would like, and Rowling gets to 
only "pick" one... it'll be interesting to see how it all turns out.

In any case, I think Harry, Snape (Rowling said when asked by a 
little girl if he was going to fall in love (the only time I've ever seen 
in a chat transcript that she was visibly stunned) that we'd find 
out more about that in Book 7, implying he's still there), 
Hermione... hmm, well I'm sure a few more characters are 
guaranteed to stick around to Book 7.  I'm pretty sure 
Dumbledore will have to be dead or incapacitated by the final 
battle though, because part of Harry's "coming-of-age" will 
involve him facing Voldemort without Dumbledore, though not 
necessarily alone--in fact, he may have to face him WITH HIS 
FRIENDS, that may be the fact that's kept him from beating him 
so far.

It's ironic we're talking about this, because last night I was 
talking to my best friend here at school about "Who's going to 
die?" and we were comparing notes.  She listed a lot of 
characters whom she thought were expendable, but I don't think 
all the characters who die in the next few books will be 
expendable, at least not if Rowling is going to be true to the 
story.  She has to kill characters we care about to get across to 
the readers how truly evil Voldemort is, the kind of anguish the 
wizarding world is going through at the time.  I mean, come on, 
honestly, were you absolutely horrified that Cedric was killed?  I 
read it knowing someone "important" was going to die, and I 
didn't realize it was him until the end of the book when no one 
else died... I kept waiting for someone like Moody, Hagrid or 
Dumbledore or someone to die.  Reading it the second time, I 
was moved, but more because of the emotional impact on Harry 
(he blames himself) than anything else.  It'll just be really cheap 
if she kills of the characters we don't really care about--for 
example, if one of the Creevey brothers are the "fan" of Harry's 
who dies.  No, I won't mind if she's being cheap, at least not the 
part of me that wants all my favorite characters to survive to the 
end, but it'll lessen the impact of the story for certain.

My friend Tami thought Ginny was expendable too, which I'm not 
sure if I quite agree with.  I think it would absolutely devastate the 
Weasley family.  I imagine Ginny is a Daddy's girl and the one 
her mom was "hoping for" (don't you think it a little interesting 
that ginny is the very last child--I know plenty of people who kept 
having kids because they wanted at least one child of the gender 
they didn't have yet), and probably the apple of her brothers' 
eyes.  Speaking an older brother with a little sister, I know I 
would be absolutely devastated if I lost my sister; the fact that 
she's the youngest and the girl makes me think that, as bad as it 
sounds, her death would be worse for the family than if one of 
the boys died.

Oh, one last little tidbit, and then I really have to move on (at least 
until someone else says something that gets my attention)--
Prisoner of Azkaban (paperback) (p.371/ch.19).  Sirius is talking 
about Pettigrew: "... ready to strike at the moment he could be 
sure of allies... and to deliver the last Potter to them."  Why the 
emphasis on "the last Potter?"  Something is definitely up here... 
it would make sense with the whole Voldemort wanting to kill 
james and Harry but not Lily, as well as the fact that Harry has no 
living Potter relatives anymore.  Something is important about 
this family, but I'm hoping it's not something as simplistic as 
"Harry Potter, the Heir of Gryffindor."  If anything, that will just 
serve to remove him even more from the rest of society and 
that's not what he needs (plus it's almost as contrived as 
OBHWF... the Heir of Slytherin VS. the Heir of Gryffindor).  BTW, 
has anyone noticed yet that the animals for the other three 
houses are all animals that eat or could kill a snake (lion; eagle; 
and badgers, which are much like mongooses, and I believe 
they do eat snakes).

Rohit (columbiatexan)





From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  6 05:23:37 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (columbiatexan)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 05:23:37 -0000
Subject: Gryffindor's Quidditch Team
In-Reply-To: <a8lpi5+5s2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8m0op+guek@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37507

Interesting question, only one spot open on upcoming year's 
team (keeper).  what's really going to be interesting is when 
Harry's 6th year rolls around, because they'll effectively lose 
practically the entire team except the Seeker and the Keeper, 
provided the Keeper survives Book V.  Maybe they'll bring in 
some reserve players to start training 'em up for a year before 
they take over for the fantastic five... kind of odd that one year has 
so many people on the house team.  Half the Gryffindors in Fred 
and George's year are on the Quidditch team (assuming 10 
students per house per year).  book 6 will be fun from a 
speculation standpoint...

My best bet is on Ron being brought on as the new Keeper and 
Quidditch captain.  There is precedent for a new member to be 
made captain (Cedric Diggory was mentioned in Book 3: "they've 
got a new Captain and Seeker, Cedric Diggory--" (p.168 
paperback/ch.9), and I see ron as far better than Harry at 
captaining a team, because of his superior strategy-building 
abilities.  I imagine he's picked up some tips over the years and 
understands all the Quidditch positions from his brothers, 
whereas Harry as a seeker is somewhat removed from the 
hustle and bustle of the game.  Plus it'd give Ron really his first 
chance so far at exploiting his talents (I didn't mean exploit in a 
negative way) to gain some recognition, much as Hermione has 
done with her intelligence and Harry has done with his bravery.

If J.K. Rowling wanted to surprise us a little, she'd make Neville 
the new keeper.  If she really wanted to surprise us, she'd make 
Hermione the new keeper.  If she really really wanted to bowl us 
over so badly we're like, "Where the heck did THAT come from," 
say hello to the new Gryffindor keeper--Parvati Patel or Lavender 
Brown.  Really though, wouldn't it be interesting to see one of the 
"ditzes" (that's what they've been painted as so far) be revealed 
to have amazing athletic abilities?  But honestly, my money's on 
Ron.  He's shown interest, and he's gotta be decent... if Harry 
had Quidditch in his blood from his dad, surely Ron with a 
seeker/captain and two beaters for brothers has it in loads (and 
we were never told that Bill WASN'T on the Quidditch team).

Allt he same, I'm really wondering whom they're going to put on 
the Quidditch team in the kiddos' sixth year.  I dont' imagine 
they'll put too many people from HRH's year, just because they'd 
be on there for only 2 years.  Younger kids?  Who knows, but it 
should be interesting... I imagine the Creevey brothers would be 
interesting beaters :P

I *really* need to be doing something more productive, but 
organic chemistry just isn't interesting me at the moment :/

-Rohit





From ebondragoon at mindspring.com  Sat Apr  6 08:44:36 2002
From: ebondragoon at mindspring.com (Christine Peterson)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 00:44:36 -0800
Subject: [SHIP] LONG: In Defense of Ginny (was Re: The Sleeping 
 Woman/Generational Parallels)
References: <1017979942.30809.68148.m10@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CAEB574.1097EAD@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37508

*takes deep breath and tries hard not to panic*
As this is my first post here, let me warn you that I can be very blunt and
sarcastic when the topic is near and dear to my heart, as it is at the moment.
No offense is intended and I will try to be as polite as possible, but I also do
believe in being honest, even if others are not pleased with my opinions. If you
don't like listening to someone who isn't afraid to take a stand, then you know
where the "delete" key is (or the scroll button if you're on digest mode).

I am _cautiously_ in support of the possibility of a future romantic
relationship between Harry and Ginny: I don't currently see enough canon
evidence that such a relationship is written in stone, but I do see canon
situations that, if assembled correctly and given enough attention and new
situations to grow on, could become the basis of a friendship between the two
and possibly more. The books are essentially told from Harry's perspective, and
as of the end of GoF, Harry _still_ barely knows Ginny. Therefore, we the
readers _still_ barely know Ginny. For those reasons, I've been rather unnerved
by some of the anti-H/G sentiments that have been expressed on the list in the
slightly over four months that I've lurked here. I'm not saying that the
anti-H/G shippers are wrong, but I _am_ saying that Ginny and her presence as a
character with a legitimate place in the story shouldn't be dismissed out of
hand based on the insufficient evidence we have thus far. Give her a chance. She
may just end up surprising us all.

Now, getting to the main purpose of my post...
First off: David, you've got some very intriguing ideas with this theory of
yours. I'm not sure I agree with everything in it, but it's pretty well thought
out and it's become a nice starting point for some reasonable speculation based
on what we've read so far. Well done! ^_^

I'm going to offer my commentary on what's been said by everyone who has weighed
in on this topic thus far, so it's going to be monstrously long. Sit down, crack
open a bottle of butterbeer, and enjoy the ride...

David wrote:
> -             There is dissatisfaction among some listies with the way women
> are presented in general in HP.

*snorts* I certainly haven't been dissatisfied. Since the books are told from
the point of view of a boy, well, they're going be somewhat boy-oriented rather
than girl-oriented. To the dissatisfied ones, I say: Patience, young
grasshopper. *laughs*

David continued:
> (I have wondered if JKR's room of desire, the one she would visit, given an
> hour at Hogwarts, is the chamber.  It would be a typical piece of misdirection
> for her to describe it as 'mentioned' in Book 4, and it is a place plausibly
> with magical properties that Harry hasn't discovered yet.  We have certainly
> not been given any reason for its name - what secrets?  Everyone knew about
> the monster.)

*THUD* Ooooh. I like it. I like it a _lot_. I have no idea why, but I do.
*grins* And isn't it funny that the Chamber is where Ginny had her own "final
confrontation" with LV (in any form)? This bears more thought, so I'll stick it
on the back burner to simmer for a while and move on...
 
David continues some more:
> Poor Devin got a lot of flack for pairing Ginny with Harry a few weeks ago
> because she is the only other character to have had a serious run-in with
> Voldemort.  I believe he is on to something, though.

*nods* As do I. Even if nothing romantic comes of it, there is the undeniable
fact that Ginny has had an experience that gives her an understanding of Harry
on a level that no one else has (at least, for the moment). Hermione hasn't been
there, nor Ron... _maybe_ Dumbledore has, in his own experiences with
Grindelwald, but as we don't know the specifics of that case, I'll leave it here
for the time being.

David continues even more:
> Postulating a romantic relationship may be a little premature, rather I see
> Ginny as symbolising the feminine complement to the predominantly masculine
> development we have so far seen.

Laura wrote:
> Being female, young, and American, I sort of automatically bristle at the
> connotations and stereotypes associated with the words "masculine" and
> "feminine"

I am female, young, and American as well, but I am not at all offended by
David's statement as you seem to be, Laura. On the contrary, I think you could
be reading too much into it. I do not believe that David's intent was to be
sexist, but rather to attempt to highlight the fact that we _have_ gotten a very
male-oriented viewpoint thus far in the books (after all, the main character is
male, each of the books' titles begins with his name, and as I said before, the
stories are told from his perspective, but I digress...). We've seen Harry's
mind, but we've only just begun to see the depths of his heart, whether in a
strictly romantic sense or in a more general emotional sense. I think this idea
ties in very nicely with the "Is Harry a Stoic?" thread from this past January.
In a very real sense, Harry's been programmed to have the stereotypical "stiff
upper lip" by his experiences. It's only now that he's beginning to learn--from
Mrs. Weasley, from Hermione, and yes, even from Ginny--that it's _all_right_ to
just let go sometimes.

Laura continues:
> What is wrong with Hermione as a feminine portrayal, anyway?

Nothing at all. I like Hermione (I see quite a bit of her in me, in fact), but
at the same time, I'm not convinced from canon that she and Harry are meant to
be.

Laura continues even more:
> Furthermore, she's not "sleeping" as Ginny is.  Her character is multi-faceted
> and a major part of the story.  Not only that, but she is, as a person,
> fiercely intelligent, strong, hardworking, loyal, and absolutely ruthless when
> need be.  Again, I ask:  What more do you people *want* in a heroine, anyway?

*shakes head* Laura, I think you've missed David's point here. If I'm
interpreting his idea correctly, he is talking about a part of Harry's psyche
that is "asleep," as it were, that is only now beginning to awaken and its
existence consciously recognized by Harry. David is further proposing that this
sleeping portion of Harry's psyche could be represented, at least in part, by
Harry's perceptions of his mother and of Ginny. The way I see it, the
significance of choosing them rather than Hermione as representatives is that
Lily and Ginny are two people that he himself barely knows, and yet both have an
emotional connection to him that is blocked in some way (Lily has been dead for
years, and Ginny is both in a younger class year and is his best friend's little
sister, so he hasn't really had much opportunity to associate with her without
near-constant interruption). Contrast this with Hermione, whom Harry knows much
better than he knows his mother or Ginny. Hermione is _not_ an unknown to Harry,
therefore he has no reason to subconsciously attribute her (as a known entity)
to the unknown part of himself. The "aura of mystery" (for lack of a better
term) around Lily and Ginny resonates on some level with the "mystery" inside
Harry, but he doesn't sense any similar "mystery" with Hermione _because_ he
knows her as well as he does. Whether the "sleeping mystery" is Harry's feminine
side to balance out his masculine side (in a sort of yin-yang dichotomy) as
David suggests or suppressed/disguised sexuality, as Pippin has pointed out (and
Pippin, that was a bloody brilliant post, btw), is open to interpretation.
Frankly, I think it could well be a combination of the two. What can I say, I
like complexity. ^_^ And speaking of Pippin...

Pippin wrote:
> Ginny, on the other hand, does not assume a maternal role 
> toward Harry (nor does she carry the ubiquitous M). I agree that 
> her immaturity and neediness are echoes of Harry's own and 
> that we will see her grow out of them just as Harry has.

Oh, it's nice how we can think alike... I said something similar in regards to
Laura's comments on having crushes at a young age. (see below a ways)

Pippin continues:
>  As Harry grows into adulthood, his need for a surrogate mother 
> may diminish and he may come to desire a romantic rather than 
> nurturing relationship with a female friend. The Oedipal need to 
> separate his yearning for a mother from his sexual desires 
> might actually drive him away from Hermione at that point, 
> although her  kiss at the end of GoF may signal her desire to 
> have things otherwise.

Jo Serenadust wrote:
> Maybe this is why a romantic relationship between Harry and Hermione has
> always seemed to be so violently *wrong* somehow.  It seems that a mature
> Harry would not be able to romantically connect with such a
> maternal/domineering type.  I've never been one to believe that males *really*
> want to marry their mothers ;-).

You both just totally hit this nail on the head! Jo, your comment that a mature
Harry may not be suited to a "maternal/domineering type" very nicely ties in
with the "Is Harry a Stoic?" issue that I brought up earlier. It's possible that
Hermione's assured assertiveness might very well eat Harry's quiet introspection
alive. Not a pleasant thought.

Pippin writes further:
> One of the lessons of the Potter books is that, unless you have the brains of
> the Sorting Hat, it is unwise to slot people into rigid categories as a result
> of your first impression.

*cheers and whistles* Thank you, thank you, thank you! May I borrow that quote
for a sig line? ^_^

Laura wrote:
> On a side note, I would like to add that although I am not particularly happy
> with it, I do believe that if JKR intends to pair people off in the future
> books, the pairs will most likely be H/G and R/Hr.  I don't like it, but from
> the way Jo's writing at this point, that's my prediction.

David wrote:
> May I ask what is the basis for this prediction?  I ask because 
> sometimes avid shippers get accused of a degree of wishful thinking, 
> so it's refreshing to hear someone make a prediction they don't like.

I'll second that! Laura, you've piqued my interest! *grins*

Laura continues:
> Hmm..well, we already know how JKR chooses to display her own (girlhood)
> femininity.  She has stated several times that Hermione is an dramatization of
> herself at that age. (I just don't understand why you aren't satisfied with
> this to the point that you go through the trouble of creating elaborate
> theories to find a substitute for Hermione)

I'm perfectly satisfied with Hermione-as-JKR. Heck, I'm writing a story right
now in which one of the main characters is modeled on myself. What I don't yet
understand is what Hermione-as-JKR has to do with Hermione being a better
romantic/emotional match for Harry than Ginny or anyone else.

David wrote:
> The fact that Ginny is said to talk a lot until Harry's presence subdues her
> is an intriguing indication.

Laura wrote:
> You don't think that maybe (just maybe) you might be reading a little bit to
> much into a little girl's reaction to a boy she has a crush on?

Not at all. Read on...

Laura continues:
> I mean, when I was that age, I barely had the guts to *look* at a boy I found
> attractive for more than a few milliseconds -- and I'm certainly not a shy
> person.  Even among older people (men and women), becoming tongue-tied,
> embarrassed, nervous, etc. is perfectly normal when one is around someone one
> is infatuated with.  It's a perfect common reaction, IMO -- especially when
> you're young (like Ginny) and haven't had much experience with the pretty
> intense emotions having the "fuzzies" instills in you.

Not only is it the way that Ginny acts around Harry (though it appears that she
may have gotten over it halfway through GoF), it's the same way that Harry
reacts to Cho in PoA and GoF. It may be that we are meant to see such facets of
Harry and his personality reflected in those who are close to him or wish to be
close to him (as Pippin inferred earlier). We just don't have enough context in
canon to determine this one way or the other. Yet. *sighs* I want Book 5 NOW,
darnit...

columbiatexan wrote:
> I'm actually really hoping Ginny doesn't end up with Harry, because I don't
> think they'll ever be on an equal footing

Why? Could you please explain how you reached this conclusion despite the
obvious lack of canon evidence?

columbiatexan continues:
> and, barring some major change in the next 3 books, Ginny's so far not had a
> chance to really get to know Harry for who he is and fall in love with that
> person.

Yet by the same token, _Harry_ has not yet had a chance to really get to know
_Ginny_ for who _she_ is and fall in love with that person either. Funny how
looking at the same argument from opposite directions cancels itself out.
*wicked grin*

*looks at the empty inbox* Oh my, is that it? I guess so, for now. *grins
wickedly at the sight of everyone staring at her with glazed eyes* Why yes, I do
like a good filibuster. How ever did you know? *cackles*

In closing, I hope that what I've said has made some of you think just a little
bit harder and try to open yourselves to possibilities that you might not have
agreed with 24 hours ago. Hey, it could happen. ^_^

And just to be contrary, this could all turn out to be a moot discussion if
Harry winds up dead by the end of Book 7. Not that I necessarily believe that
Harry's a goner, but I do acknowledge that the possibility exists. *smirks*

*steps down from soapbox, dusts it off for the next poster, and Disapparates
before there's a chance to _really_ panic*

Christine
--
Graduate of the Vorlon Empire Academy for the Philosophically Inclined




From jferer at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  6 10:02:53 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 10:02:53 -0000
Subject: Hermione dying???
In-Reply-To: <a8loh0+6hga@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8mh4d+kb8i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37509

Columbiatexan:"To put it very badly, Harry NEEDS Hermione to do the 
research for him; she's his fountain of information, a human Internet/
portable reference."

Good post. Hermione is, indeed, Harry's coach and trainer, the one 
person who uses intellect to prepare the man of action for his trials. 
She doesn't just research for Harry, she drills him in the skills 
he'll need. Harry is the example of pure talent, a "natural" at magic. 
Hermione has plenty of talent but isn't a natural. She's the exemplar 
of what application can do.

I agree that Hermione will survive, because she's the female hero of 
the tale.

Columbiatexan:"Hermione's safe not b/c Rowling doesn't want to kill 
herself, but because she's Rowling's way of feeding Harry information, 
logic, reason, and even-tempered thinking."

To me that's the argument for Hermione *being* killed. In the end, JKR 
is going to force Harry to face Voldemort again alone. She's already 
given us a taste for that in "Priori Incantatem," the one trial 
Harry couldn't specifically prepare for. He's not going to have 
Dumbledore, or Ron, or even Hagrid; he's going to have to carry on 
when all hope seems gone.

Colubiatexan:"[my best friend] listed a lot of characters whom she 
thought were expendable, but I don't think all the characters who die 
in the next few books will be expendable, at least not if Rowling is 
going to be true to the story.  She has to kill characters we care 
about to get across to the readers how truly evil Voldemort is, the 
kind of anguish the wizarding world is going through at the time."

Right. the notion that fighting evil has a price, that good people and 
close friends die, is a major theme of Rowling's. The deaths are going 
to hurt, and Harry will suffer. A lot.





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  6 14:55:04 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 14:55:04 -0000
Subject: Gryffindor's Quidditch Team
In-Reply-To: <a8m0op+guek@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8n288+d6ni@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37510

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "columbiatexan" <columbiatexan at y...> wrote:
> Interesting question, only one spot open on upcoming year's 
> team (keeper).  
Is one of us completely wrong? I thought Fred, George, and Angelina 
all graduated at the end of GoF. Wood graduated at the end of PofA 
and was signed with Puddlemere United Reserve Team, GofF Ch.7

> My best bet is on Ron being brought on as the new Keeper and 
> Quidditch captain.  

I'd love to see Ron in the spotlight a little as well as 
the 'invisible' Gryffindors. 

Uncmark




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sat Apr  6 15:42:49 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 15:42:49 -0000
Subject: Gryffindor's Quidditch Team
In-Reply-To: <a8n288+d6ni@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8n51p+ifpd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37511

Uncmark wrote:

> Is one of us completely wrong? I thought Fred, George, and Angelina 
> all graduated at the end of GoF. Wood graduated at the end of PofA 
> and was signed with Puddlemere United Reserve Team, GofF Ch.7
 
> Uncmark

F&G and Angelina (since she's in their year) are TWO years younger than 
Percy. For example, we know that they were preparing for their OWLS/
NEWTS at the same time. The first one takes place in 5th year, and the 
other in the last year. Thus, they've got one last year before leaving 
Hogwarts. I know it's a bit confusing - I also though they had 
finished, since they've already got ground work done for their shop. If 
you're unsure, check the Lexicon, you'll be able to find canon on the 
matter to your heart's consent.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  6 20:37:54 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 20:37:54 -0000
Subject: Gryffindor's Quidditch Team
In-Reply-To: <a8n51p+ifpd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8nmb2+lgrd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37512

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., ":
I asked 
> 
> > Is one of us completely wrong? I thought Fred, George, and 
Angelina all graduated at the end of GoF. Wood graduated at the end 
of PofA and was signed with Puddlemere United Reserve Team, GofF Ch.7
>  
> grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> F&G and Angelina (since she's in their year) are TWO years younger 
> than Percy. For example, we know that they were preparing for their 
> OWLS/NEWTS at the same time. The first one takes place in 5th year, 
> and the other in the last year. Thus, they've got one last year 
before leaving Hogwarts. 

Sorry, comes from posting after a night shift. Still, I'd like to see 
Ron, but wonder who'd become captain. Harry's a great seeker, but 
it's a specialized part of the game. Plus Fred, George, and Ron grew 
up with the game. 

How about Angelina or Katie? We don't know that much of their 
characters other than Angelina is confident enough to enter the 
Triwizard Tournament. Sounds like some leadership qualities there.

PURE CONJECTURE TIME
If we guess that JKR would like to keep Fleur and Viktor Krum in the 
stories, they might come as teaching assistants OR... athletic 
coaches!

Krum might come to Hogwart's to build a school Quidditch Program to 
possibly later build a school team to compete with Beauxbotton, 
Durmstrang, and any other Wizard schools. In Year 5 he might work 
with all 4 houses with an ulterior motive to be close to Hermione 
(potential for more future triangles) The cute seeker from Ravenclaw 
might work close with him making Harry jealous?

Any potential there?

Uncmark




From elfundeb at aol.com  Sat Apr  6 20:37:59 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 15:37:59 EST
Subject: Ambition and Percy (WAS: Official Discussion Topic) 
Message-ID: <17f.65046a4.29e0b6a7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37513

This very late and too long post is the product of my reflections on this 
week's Percy discussion topic, which got me thinking about the way "ambition" 
is portrayed in HP and the role it might play in the coming books.  

My reading of the books is that it outwardly leaves the reader with a very 
negative, Seven Deadly Sin impression of ambition.  For example, the Sorting 
Hat associates ambition with Slytherin in a none too flattering manner.  In 
GoF it states, "And power-hungry Slytherin loved those of great ambition."  
In PS/SS the Hat says of the Slytherins:  "Those cunning folk use any means 
to achieve their ends."   I read these statements as a clear association of 
ambition with the use of unscrupulous means to attain power.  Coupled with 
the long list of power-hungry Slytherins who turned to dark magic -- starting 
with Voldemort himself, Exhibit A to the principle of the corruptive 
influence of power, ambition gets a very bad name in the Potterverse.

Conversely, characters who are strongly identified with the Good side are 
arguably presented as not ambitious.  For example, Dumbledore sees in the 
Mirror of Erised only a pair of socks, and McGonagall suggests that he has 
great powers that he is unwilling to use.  Arthur Weasley seems content to 
run a very small two-person department at the MOM, for evidently a small 
salary, preferring to indulge his fondness for Muggles and their gadgetry.  
Only at the end of Gof do we learn that he's been "held back" at the ministry 
because he would not conform to Fudge's vision of "proper wizarding pride" in 
order to advance.

But I think that the "ambition is evil" flavor that seems to emanate from the 
books is too simplistic.  That's not consistent with the definition of 
ambition most of us would probably accept.  As Penny said, 

 Being ambitious or seeking power isn't *evil* though.  Plenty of 
people are highly ambitious & motivated for very good reasons.  
Perhaps Percy has a sweeping vision for vast reforms in the Wizarding 
World society if he achieves his goal of becoming Minister of Magic 
(I believe he intimates that he has ideas for changes at one point in 
the series).  Being power-hungry solely for the *status,* albeit not 
particularly praise-worthy, hardly constitutes *evil* though.  
> 
Me again:

As has been pointed out before, there are a number of ambitious characters 
whose ambitions are entirely honorable, such as Hermione, as illustrated in 
the current thread on Hermione and the Polyjuice Potion.  She desires 
academic success, but wants to do everything right.  Percy does the same 
thing. In fact, I think most of what Percy does in his job at the MOM is 
exactly what any young, ambitious professional would do starting out on his 
first job.  He is trying to distinguish himself to a boss who doesn't even 
know his name.  Having been assigned to write a report on cauldron thickness, 
he works hard to produce a quality report.  (Being a bit overzealous, he 
turns it in early, but wouldn't Hermione have done the same thing?)  When 
Percy gets the assignment to substitute for Crouch, which IMO he does not 
really have the experience to do, he relies on the instructions he is given.  
Yes, he should in retrospect have asked questions.  But he is 18 and in way 
over his head here.  There's nothing wrong whatsoever, IMO, about this 
expression of his career ambition.  

What distinguishes Hermione from Percy in my view is that Percy also shows a 
desire for the trappings of authority, as shown by, e.g., his need to polish 
his prefect and head boy badges; his need to tell Harry and Ron at the Yule 
Ball about all the important things he's doing at the Ministry, etc.  
(Probably every instance in the book where Percy is referred to as pompous 
would support this point.)  
Percy's ambition is frequently caricatured by JKR's use of phrases like 
"Percy the Prefect" as well as the twins' ridicule.  I think this is directed 
at the recognition-hungry, Humongous Bighead aspect of Percy's ambition, not 
his career goals.  I don't believe that JKR ever uses the word "ambitious" to 
describe Hermione or other examples of benign ambition.  (I wish the books 
were on line so I could check this assertion.)  This leads me to believe that 
when JKR uses the word "ambition" she means a desire for things that can 
corrupt, such as power, money or glory.  

Penny's question about Ron's expression of Percy's ambition: 

Dr. Philip Nel writes:

In GoF, Ron remarks, 'Percy loves rules,' and he wonders whether his brother 
would send a family member to Azkaban if it would advance his career (GoF, pg 
463).  

Are we the readers meant to believe that it would be Percy who would be an 
unwitting pawn of the Dark Side or is Rowling perhaps misdirecting us?  Are 
Ron's statements about Percy and his familial relationships perhaps too 
heavy-handed?  Hermione seems to think so.  What do you think of Hermione's 
judgment in this matter?   

My thoughts (I'm probably focusing more on Ron's follow-up justification that 
Percy is really ambitious):  

I think Ron and Hermione are both partly right, based on their own 
perceptions of Percy. Hermione's refusal to believe Percy could ever throw a 
family member to the dementors, IMO, reflects the her compassion as well as 
her own interaction with Percy. But looking at the question from Ron's point 
of view, I might reach a different, equally reasonable answer.  Sirius' 
explanation of Crouch Sr. bears many similarities to Percy.  Both aspire to 
be Minister of Magic, both are highly zealous in pursuit of their careers, 
both work hard (perhaps "too much" would be a better way to put it), and both 
have strong views about wrongdoers.  But what I think Ron focuses on that's 
different from Hermione's view is that Crouch Sr. completely ignored his 
family, which seems in Sirius' view to be Crouch Sr.'s greatest error.  
Looking at Percy's interactions with his family from Ron's POV, this 
criticism of Percy certainly seems to have merit.  Some examples:

1. In PS/SS, after putting on his robes and prefect badge the minute he 
crossed the barrier at Platform 9 3/4, Percy rushes off to the prefects' 
compartments, leaving his family on the platform.  But, since they were 
reserved, surely he didn't need to rush?  If Percy had been on the platform, 
I would have expected Molly to tell him, as a prefect and oldest brother at 
school, to look after first-year Ron.  But since he's gone, she gives that 
job to Fred and George.  That he chose to associate with the prefects all 
term is evident from the fact that George has to demand that he spend 
Christmas day with the family.

2. Whenever we see Percy at the Burrow, he is always shut up in his room.  
This happens both in CoS, when he's writing to Penelope, and in GoF.  In 
addition, in GoF, Ron states that Percy wouldn't even come home from work if 
Arthur didn't force him to. 

3. Penelope Clearwater is notably absent in GoF, leading at least to the 
question whether he has abandoned her for his career (though he could have 
spent time with her at the Yule Ball when Harry wasn't looking).

This leads to more of Penny's questions:

Is he [Percy] really the same type of person as Crouch or Fudge? How would 
you distinguish Percy from these characters?   [I]s Percy's ambition 
highlighted more or about the same as some of the flaws of the other 
characters?  If you believe it's been stressed even slightly more, is this in 
your judgment a red flag 
or a red herring?

Me again:

I think most (many?) of us would agree that we would distinguish Percy from 
Crouch and other characters whose ambitions have taken over their lives, at 
least at this point in the story, on the basis that he has demonstrated a 
genuine concern for members of his family.  But I don't necessarily think 
that Percy's ambition is a red herring, regardless of how it plays out.  I 
think a deliberate comparison is being drawn between Crouch Sr. and Percy.  
One could readily imagine an 18-year-old Crouch just beginning in the 
ministry as having characteristics very similar to Percy.  My office has more 
than one example of one-time fun-loving summer clerks who now spend night and 
day at the office away from their families and with very little apparent 
remorse.   I can envision the same thing having happened to Crouch.  And the 
mere existence of the comparison illustrates the decisions Percy will face, 
and what could happen if Percy becomes even more isolated from his family.  

I believe this is another illustration of the "choices make our characters" 
theme. The 
> way  that JKR  illustrates the choices facing the characters by generational 
> parallels seems complementary to the "series of seemings" that Thomas Hardy 
> used in Jude the Obscure to suggest how our choices, or lack thereof, 
> determine who we are.  Thus,  I think Percy's dilemma and the influence of 
> ambition on other characters as well will become more prominent as a theme 
> in the coming books, as the younger characters grow more mature and begin 
> to face really difficult choices.   And as the past is revealed we may also 
> get more insight into how ambition may have played a role in the present 
> character of some of the older generation of characters, such as Arthur 
> Weasley.
> 
> There's obviously a lot more that could be said about JKR's treatment of 
> ambition in other characters that would make for fascinating analysis.  
> Just a couple:
> 
> 1. How has Percy's ambition affected Ron?  I think that beneath the surface 
> Ron is a lot like Percy.  Both share the same insecurities and desire for 
> recognition, and I would argue that both are equally lost in the Weasley 
> family dynamic.  (Barb Purdom wrote a post earlier this week (#37315) on 
> how the Weasley family dynamic, in particular the insertion of the twins 
> and their charismatic, attention-getting personalities between Percy and 
> Ron has brought about Percy's isolation from the family.)  IMO the twins' 
> constant ridicule of Percy has so affected Ron that he's unwilling to take 
> any action in pursuit of goals; rather he accepts recognition for passive 
> events such as being attacked by Sirius in his dormitory or being rescued 
> from the lake.  Perhaps someone with a psychiatric background could tackle 
> this.
> 
> 2. Snape.  I would argue that everything he's ever done is a result of his 
> ambition, or thwarted ambition.  Perhaps an analysis of Snape would be an 
> even better window into the role of ambition in the moral compass of the 
> books.
> 
> 3. The twins -- Ron also comments about their ambition, which is expressed 
> in their obsession with money, and suggests they might resort to 
> lawbreaking to obtain seed money for their joke shop.  Is the twins' crisis 
> over because of the windfall of Harry's Triwizard winnings?  That seems too 
> easy a solution to me for characters who have already resorted to gambling 
> and near-blackmail.  

4.  Other, minor characters who exemplify ambition run amok, like Oliver Wood 
whose 
> obsession with winning the Quidditch cup controls his life.
> 
> Debbie, sorry that Percy week is nearly over by the time I got around to 
> finishing this and wishing there were 30 hours in every day
> 
> 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From landers at email.unc.edu  Sat Apr  6 22:07:46 2002
From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 17:07:46 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gryffindor's Quidditch Team
Message-ID: <3CAF71B2.624EEE08@email.unc.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 37514

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "columbiatexan" <columbiatexan at y...> wrote:
> Interesting question, only one spot open on upcoming year's 
> team (keeper).  

UNCMARK:
Is one of us completely wrong? I thought Fred, George, and Angelina 
all graduated at the end of GoF. Wood graduated at the end of PofA 
and was signed with Puddlemere United Reserve Team, GofF Ch.7

*Probably this has already been answered, but Gred andForge have a year
left after GoF.  They're two years ahead of Harry.  They'd just taken
their O.W.L.'s in third year PoA.  TRon says something somewhere in GoF
about them saying they had to think abou t their future b/c they only
had a year left at Hogwarts.  GoF 29, I think?  Either early 29 or late
28.
Someone's got other examples, I'm certain.
Betty



From spottydog at worldnet.att.net  Sat Apr  6 23:34:08 2002
From: spottydog at worldnet.att.net (CARRIE MUNGAI)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 15:34:08 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gryffindor's Quidditch Team
References: <a8nmb2+lgrd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c1ddc3$909aa660$0288520c@s0023817978>

No: HPFGUIDX 37515


Uncmark wrote:
"How about Angelina or Katie? We don't know that much of their 
characters other than Angelina is confident enough to enter the 
Triwizard Tournament. Sounds like some leadership qualities there."

It is my guess that Fred and George will be voted co-captains, thereby giving the twins a larger role and a chance to develop "responsibility". We'll see. Spottydog




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From boggles at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  7 01:45:21 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 19:45:21 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort's mum, Gyffindor's Heir, Harry's Fame,
 and the Frog Prince
In-Reply-To: <a8h23e+v03v@eGroups.com>
References: <a8h23e+v03v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <p0501040ab8d5518ee555@[66.149.197.187]>

No: HPFGUIDX 37516

At 8:15 AM +0000 4/4/02, carrie1138 wrote:
>
>Is Voldemort's Slytherin
>heritage definitely from her side of the family? I can't recall
>offhand whether Tom Riddle Jr says so or not, maybe someone else
>could kindly look that up? ;-)

As you wish . . .

CoS, US paperback edition, Chapter 17:

"You think I was going to use my filthy Muggle father's name 
forever?I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salaxar Slytherin 
himself, through my mother's side?"

So, yes.



At 3:39 PM +0000 4/4/02, mrflynn6 wrote:
>Also when Harry goes to Dumbledore's office for the first time, he
>mentions that the doorknocker was a Gryffin.  Dumbledore also is in
>possession of Gryffindor's Sword.  Could Dumbledore also be a
>desecendent of Gryffindor?

I'd gotten the impression from that scene that Dumbledore is, in 
fact, Gryffindor's heir.  I'm also quite certain, from his references 
to the Dursleys as the only family Harry has left, that he's not a 
close relative of Harry's.  Fanfic aside, that means that Harry isn't 
the heir of Gryffindor, although it doesn't rule out their both being 
descended from Godric by completely different paths.



At 2:39 PM -0500 4/4/02, Bernadette M. Crumb wrote:
>Well, perhaps Harry didn't match up with Stan's internal image of
>what THE BOY WHO LIVED looked like.  True, Harry is famous, but
>we really don't have much indication that there are many accurate
>wizardly photos of him out there...

No, but we are repeatedly hit over the head with his uncanny 
resemblance to James, who seems to have been rather popular in his 
day.  Stan might not recognize Harry through the resemblance, but 
Ernie should, if they move in the Hogwarts circles.  I rather like 
the theory that they both left Hogwarts after their OWLs, as it keeps 
them out of the loop without kludging "extra" wizarding schools.



At 10:09 PM +0000 4/5/02, serenadust wrote:
>I really must read Bettelheim; I had never heard of the toad
>symbolism before.  I wonder if JKR really had that in mind when she
>wrote this (I also wonder if Tabouli's acronym generator would
>explode if it had to come up with one for this theory. TOADKEEPER,
>indeed!)

The Frog Prince is only the most famous of the Libido Beasts; the 
Beast of Beauty and the Beast is also one.  So is the Big Bad Wolf in 
Red Riding Hood (Lupin, anyone?).  Peter Gabriel's song "Kiss That 
Frog" is a rather nice sum-up of the theory.

Having said that, I agree with the person who noted that, strictly 
speaking, toads are not traditional Libido Beasts.  I would also add 
that if Trevor represents anyone's libido, it's Neville's, not 
Hermione's.


-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!



From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  7 00:38:29 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (columbiatexan)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:38:29 -0000
Subject: Quidditch, Ginny's good qualities and more (inc. ships; Lupin/Snape treatment of Hermione)
Message-ID: <a8o4e5+ivcq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37517

Fred, George and Angelina for certain have another year at 
Hogwarts; they were all 6th years in GoF.  Also, the lexicon 
clearly states that Katie Bell and Alicia Spinnet were both 6th 
years, so that's where I sourced all my information--I'm 
assuming this was in Book I, which is back at home so I can't 
look it up myself.  In any case, I personally am rooting for Ron... 
it'd be nice to see him get some glory that doesn't involve 
S.A.C.R.I.F.I.C.E.  

For me it doesn't involve "ickle Ronniekins" so much "getting 
glory" as being provided the opportunity to shine/excel much as 
Harry and Hermione have already been provided in spades 
throught the first four books.  I really, really don't want this to be 
headed in the direction of Ron getting increasingly jealous as 
his two best friends continue to outstrip him while he remains 
"average ol' Ron," and finally turning to the Dark side and 
betraying Harry in the process.  If any betrayal is to occur, I think it 
would be completely accidental or that Ron would be tricked into 
it, and that he'd fix the situation in the end somehow.  So far, 
Ron's proven himself to be far too noble, I think it'd be well out of 
character for him to turn evil.  I mean, this is the same kid who at 
the age of 11 sacrificed himself (he didn't know he wouldn't die) 
to save Harry and Hermione, and who has not acted on his 
jealousy for 4 years of being around Harry (and that I think was 
triggered out of some sense of hurt that Harry hadn't let him in 
on how he confounded the cup).   And we've all seen how fierce 
a defender Ron is, for his family, for Harry, and for Hermione.  
Anyone says a bad word about any of 'em, and Ron is ready to 
kill them.  

Christine, a hearty welcome to the group from a fellow novice!  I 
just wanted to say for the record that I am not anti-Ginny.  I think 
her character provides some interesting possibilities, though 
she's not been very well developed so far.  There's ample room 
for more character development for young Ginny Weasley, 
considering there' about another 2000 pages to go (I'm going off 
of Rowling's comments that the next 2 books would be almost 
as long as Book 4, but not quite, and that Book 7 would be 
almost encylcopedic b/c it'd be her goodbye to all the characters 
and this world she's writing about).  In fact, in the 4 books up to 
now, if I had to make a bet based on *only the information and 
no speculation from any hints or interpretation of that 
information* that we've been given, I'd say the most likely 
romantic pairings are Ron and Hermione and Harry and Ginny, 
just because it'd be a smile-inducing ending and, more 
importantly, those are the only relationships between relatively 
major characters in the books in which we've seen any romantic 
interest on the part of at least one party towards the other (Ron is 
definitely possessive of Hermione around Viktor, and Ginny likes 
Harry, and there is indication that Hermione returns Ron's 
feelings towards her to some extent).  It's not what I want to 
happen, but it's the most likely so far, it seems to be the direction 
Rowling is directing us in, and I'm not convinced that we should 
automatically disregard Rowling directing us in certain 
directions because it's always going to be a red herring or b/c 
something is too cliched.  After all, Voldemort rising again after 
everyone thought him vanquished, now when has that NOT 
happened in a story like this before?  My hopes are based on 
what my individual interpretation is of the characters' 
personalities. 

But... Rowling has definitely created some ambiguity on 
Hermione's feelings (wow, a teenaged girl who doesn't know 
what she wants, geez, I've never run into one of THOSE before!), 
and she remains one of the major wild cards here.  I will be very 
disappointed if Rowling doesn't address the potential for conflict 
within the Trio; the final outcome, yeah I am rooting for one over 
the other, but I'm more interested in how the plot develops.  Ron 
going after Hermione with Harry helping him out or acting as a 
bemused bystander is too saccharine sweet for my taste, and 
the vice versa happening with Harry and Ginny is likewise too 
saccharine.  And I will be really disappointed if Ginny ends up 
resembling Lily Potter, and Harry just notices it one day and falls 
madly in love with her--someone on this list was quoted in the 
HPfGU FAQ deal as saying that the romantic pairings need to 
"raise the stakes" with regards to the plot--Rowling isn't just 
going to pair people off for romance's sake.  I've read a couple of 
the fan fiction, and without a doubt, in my opinion, the worst are 
the ones where Hermione and one of the boys are "destined to 
be together" and the other boy helps them get together with the 
help of his girlfriend--they're so nausea-inducing, I feel like I've 
just choked down 5 of those gigantic chocolate chip muffins.  
One is good, but 5 will make you sick.    

Ginny still has the potential to get to know Harry for himself, and 
vice versa.  Christine, i should have had the vice versa in my last 
post, and I respectfully disagree that it voids what I was saying.   
The two of them really need the opportunity to get to know each 
other as people rather than the roles they've assigned to each 
other, which, perhaps Ron and Hermione getting together will 
isolate Harry sufficiently to seek friendship (and more?) with 
Ginny.  However, again, is it just me or is that too saccharine 
sweet compared to the tone so far of the books, and our certain 
knowledge that they're only going to get darker?  Rowling keeps 
saying she wants to relate to the readers (especially the 
children) how the real world operates, and not just present them 
with some candy-coated version of it where everything turns out 
all right, because everything does NOT turn out all right in the 
real world.  I see one great opportunity here; it's just too contrary 
to real life for Ginny to finally get the attentions of her hero, the 
guy she's put up on a pedestal for all these years, and for them 
to live happily ever after.  Then again, there's another 2000 
pages for a whole ton of stuff to happen--nothing's impossible.  
But more than anything, Ginny's a kid who seems to be 
overshadowed and overprotected by her entire family, and she 
really needs to get out from under that.  it'll be interesting to see 
how she tries to make a name for herself, so she's not just Bill, 
Charlie, Percy, Fred, George and Ron's little sister at Hogwarts.  
It won't merely be through Quidditch or good academic work, 
that's "been done."  And with academics, i don't think anyone's 
going to hold a candle to Hermione in these 7 books--her latent 
natural talent and ability, combined with her passion for learning 
and her remarkable intellect, she's got an advantage that won't 
easily be caught up with.  Y'know, somewhat off topic, but I'm 
willing to bet if you came to Columbia or many other colleges for 
that matter and polled the students, Hermione would rank high 
on the list of favorite characters, because many of them identify 
strongly with her passion for learning... myself included.  Uh oh, I 
just said I identified with a girl... please don't whip out your Freud 
books on me :)  I identify with Ron's sarcastic wit and temper 
and Harry on many levels as well *wipes sweat from brow*

There is, of course, one thing we've all been ignoring in all of 
these shipping conversations--that everyone could end up 
alone.  Isn't anyon interested at all in the fact that most of the 
adult wizards and witches we've come into contact with so far 
are single?  Think about it... all the Hogwarts professors... 
Cornelius Fudge (as far as we know)... Bertha Jorkins... 
Remus... Sirius (OK, so he's been in prison for the past 13 
years, that might have SOMETHING to do with it :P)... maybe 
marriage and romance isn't too common in this world, or at least 
not as common as it is in our world, which would be consistent 
enough with the theory that was floating around here back when 
we were discussing the ethics of Sirius executing Wormtail in 
the Srikeing Shack that this culture is more of a warrior culture.  
People don't generally have time for love and marriage when 
they're off protecting their very way of life, and in constant threat of 
being Avada-Kedavra'd.  

In short, while I am hoping for a Harry-Hermione pairing, I will 
not be disappointed if that does not happen PROVIDED THAT 
Rowling does address this issue with the respect and 
complexity it deserves.  Ron and Hermione and Harry and Ginny 
being paired off automatically, with no interference save from 
extraneous, "expendable" characters we know are no threat to 
begin with is cheap and disappointing and does nothing to 
"raise the stakes."  Those couples ending up together after 
stake-raising, after pain, after sufferin', after mature reflection 
and thought and discussion the matter will not keep me being 
happy with the books--my primary concern is advancement of 
the plot.

And btw, is anyone besides me curious on why Lupin didn't let 
Hermione tackle the boggart either in Book 3 until the very end?  
I mean, it's not like her "greatest fear" during the final exam was 
that terrible, so was this just an accidental oversight on his part?  
Or did he feel Hermione had already earned her 5 pts for 
Gryffindor with her correct answer?  I don't know, maybe I'm 
getting into the danger of overanalyzing things, but that has 
always struck me as really curious.  Oh, and in continuation of 
this whole generational parallels thing, when hermione starts 
questioning Black post-Pettigrew's revealing, the narration 
observes, "Black umped at being addressed like this and stared 
at Hermione as though he had never seen anything quite like 
her."  I imagine the look on his face to be a squinty-eyed one, in 
which case was it like he'd never seen anything quite like her, or 
that her manner and inquisitiveness reminded him of someone 
from his past?  A stretch I know.  a really bad one at that :)

OK, almost done with this extremely long post--anyone 
wondering why Snape seems to single out Hermione so much 
as the target for his anger?  She seems to be second only to 
Harry as a target for his venom; if you'll notice, Ron only gets into 
trouble when he mouths off specifically to Snape (which, 
admittedly, is quite often :P).  I mean, Snape seems like the kind 
of professor who would like a know-it-all student like Hermione, 
especially since she continues to be respectful and thoughtful 
towards him, despite his extreme rudeness and cruelty towards 
her.  She alone among the trio worries when they knock Snape 
out in the Shrieking shack and she alone of the trio is unwilling 
to automatically suspect Snape in SS.  Perhaps more Gryffindor-
Slytherin rivalry?  that could be it, he could be ticked off that 
Hermione is outshining his students in his OWN class, but why 
so much resentment towards her?  I dunno, it's just something 
I've picked up on in rereadings, and I'm very curious on how it's 
going to turn out, because he seems to be excessively cruel 
towards her for no reason (the best example of this is after Harry 
and Draco's duel in Potions, when their curses rebound off of 
each other and Hermione's front teeth are enlarged, and Snape 
makes some comment on how he doesn't notice a difference 
despite the fact that they've grown down to her chest).  I mean, 
that's just evil!  So what's going on here--she continues to be 
respectful to him and even defend him to the boys, and yet he 
goes out of his way to pick on her.  Why?

OK, back to the orgo... just thought I'd treat myself by outletting 
some thoughts.

rohit (columbiatexan)





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sun Apr  7 02:21:00 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:21:00 -0000
Subject: Quidditch, Ginny's good qualities and more (inc. ships; Lupin/Snape treatment of Hermione)
In-Reply-To: <a8o4e5+ivcq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8oaec+gri9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37518

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "columbiatexan" <columbiatexan at y...> 
wrote:
> And btw, is anyone besides me curious on why Lupin didn't let 
> Hermione tackle the boggart either in Book 3 until the very end?  

I think Lupin didn't want Harry to be singled out as the only 
student in the class who doesn't get to face the boggart.  So he 
picked Hermione as the "extra," since she'd already earned her 
points by answering his questions earlier.

> OK, almost done with this extremely long post--anyone 
> wondering why Snape seems to single out Hermione so much 
> as the target for his anger?  She seems to be second only to 
> Harry as a target for his venom; if you'll notice, Ron only gets 
into 
> trouble when he mouths off specifically to Snape (which, 
> admittedly, is quite often :P). 

I think Neville actually gets more abuse from Snape than Hermione 
does.  I'd rank the abuse quotient as: Harry, Neville, Hermione, 
Ron.  And since the best way to get Ron's goat is to attack 
Hermione, I suspect Snape is killing two birds with one stone. :-)

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Sun Apr  7 03:08:55 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 19:08:55 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What did Tom know and when did he know it? (was: Voldy's mum)
In-Reply-To: <a8i01l+o279@eGroups.com>
References: <a8i01l+o279@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1568852917.20020406190855@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37519


Thursday, April 04, 2002, 8:46:45 AM, blpurdom wrote:

b> One has to wonder what the orphanage staff would have made of an owl 
b> delivering a letter to young Tom, and how he would have shopped for 
b> his school supplies, let alone pay for them.

Maybe Dippet sent Ogg to fetch Tom, much as D sent Hagrid to
get Harry?

-- 
Dave




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Sun Apr  7 06:38:37 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 06:38:37 -0000
Subject: Quidditch, Ginny's good qualities and more (inc. ships; Lupin/Snape treatment of Hermione)
In-Reply-To: <a8o4e5+ivcq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8ophd+ah9s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37522

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "columbiatexan" <columbiatexan at y...> 


> a defender Ron is, for his family, for Harry, and for Hermione.  
> Anyone says a bad word about any of 'em, and Ron is ready to 
> kill them.  

I agree that Ron is a much more noble character than he is given 
credit for and that betrayal of Harry is OOC for him.  He's handled 
his feelings of jealousy and pain over his being overlooked superbly 
for a boy his age.  The fight with Harry in GoF has as much to do 
with his hurt over believing that Harry didn't confide his plans to 
him as they do with his feeling of jealously (as you rightly point 
out).  I also believe that he learned a great deal from that 
experience and that his loyalty to Harry is stronger now than ever.
 

Columbiatexan wrote: 
  I will be very 
> disappointed if Rowling doesn't address the potential for conflict 
> within the Trio; the final outcome, yeah I am rooting for one over 
> the other, but I'm more interested in how the plot develops.  

Why will you be so disappointed?  From the books so far, my 
impression is that any romantic relationship angle is more for 
character development, rather than furthering the plot.  IMO Rowling 
does not need to use any romantic rivalries to stir up conflict, 
when the entire WW is about to come apart at the seams as Voldemort 
begins his rise to power. Anyway, there's plenty of conflict within 
the trio already.  Why must it be the romantic kind?

Columbiatexan again:

> madly in love with her--someone on this list was quoted in the 
> HPfGU FAQ deal as saying that the romantic pairings need to 
> "raise the stakes" with regards to the plot--Rowling isn't just 
> going to pair people off for romance's sake.  I've read a couple 
of 
> the fan fiction, and without a doubt, in my opinion, the worst are 
> the ones where Hermione and one of the boys are "destined to 
> be together" and the other boy helps them get together with the 
> help of his girlfriend--they're so nausea-inducing, I feel like 
I've 
> just choked down 5 of those gigantic chocolate chip muffins.  
> One is good, but 5 will make you sick.    
> 

That fanfic will get you in trouble every time<g>.  Seriously, I 
disagree that romantic pairings are going to be Rowings device 
to "raise the stakes".  In fact, if that were to happen, I think 
that it would detract from the main thrust of the story (ie personal 
choices, the resulting consequences, good vs evil, etc ).  I believe 
that she has begun to introduce the romantic feelings in the 
characters because they are an unavoidable part of teenage life, but 
that they are not going to be a major part of the story.  These kids 
are going to have a *lot* more important stuff to worry them than 
who *gets* the hero.  The ships are probably going to be there to 
provide a bit of lightness and humor in the midst of the coming 
darkness, more than anything else (IMHO, of course).

   
Columbiatexan again:
 And with academics, i don't think anyone's 
> going to hold a candle to Hermione in these 7 books--her latent 
> natural talent and ability, combined with her passion for learning 
> and her remarkable intellect, she's got an advantage that won't 
> easily be caught up with.  Y'know, somewhat off topic, but I'm 
> willing to bet if you came to Columbia or many other colleges for 
> that matter and polled the students, Hermione would rank high 
> on the list of favorite characters, because many of them identify 
> strongly with her passion for learning... myself included.  

Oh dear.  I know Hermione is very impressive and that lots of 
academically inclined people identify greatly with her, but I have 
always thought that Rowling is trying to point out that intellect 
and talent can only take you so far. I'm beginning to hope that JKR 
will have Hemione fall on her face in a big way, to reinforce that 
point.  There's an unhealthy level (IMO) of Hermione-worship going 
on here; it's just not good for her.  You don't want her to develop 
humongous bis-head syndrome, do you <vbg>?
 
Columbiatexan:

> People don't generally have time for love and marriage when 
> they're off protecting their very way of life, and in constant 
threat of 
> being Avada-Kedavra'd.  

This is just my point.  These books are never going to be the teen 
romance novels the shipping warriors seem to want them to be.


Columbiatexan:

> > 
> OK, almost done with this extremely long post--anyone 
> wondering why Snape seems to single out Hermione so much 
> as the target for his anger?  She seems to be second only to 
>  So what's going on here--she continues to be 
> respectful to him and even defend him to the boys, and yet he 
> goes out of his way to pick on her.  Why?
> 

Because she *will* not be ignored. She knows from repeated bitter 
experience that he will attack and humiliate her any time she raises 
her hand or speaks out of turn, and yet she cannot seem to stop 
herself.  Snape goes out of his way to target anyone who is close to 
Harry; that's the primary reason for his horrible behavior to his 
best friends.  Ron ususally has enough sense to stay out of his way, 
but Hermione keeps trying to prove to him what a great student she 
is and seems to want to win his approval.  She's got a real blind 
spot there.  Snape just hates anyone who is close to Harry.
  
Really good post, I wish I had time to respond to more of your 
points but I'm getting really tired, now.

Jo Serenadust




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sun Apr  7 10:27:55 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 03:27:55 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's treatment of Hermione
In-Reply-To: <a8o4e5+ivcq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1FB2B398-4A12-11D6-B637-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37523

Rohit/Columbiatexan asked:

> OK, almost done with this extremely long post--anyone
> wondering why Snape seems to single out Hermione so much
> as the target for his anger??

I had a couple of observations on this. For one thing, I think part of 
the reason Snape is so annoyed by Hermione is that she has a tin ear for 
his rhetoric. She insists on interpreting him literally when he's making 
some sweeping dramatic gesture, and I think that really grates on him 
because a lot of his sense of authority is tied up in how well he can 
intimidate people. For instance, in the first Potions class, when Snape 
is trying to make Harry squirm with his "fame isn't everything" speech, 
she acts like he's actually asking the class questions. He isn't, he's 
making a point about not fawning over Harry, and she misreads it. 
Similarly, when Neville was messing up his Shrinking Potion and Snape 
swooped over to humiliate him over how orange it was, Hermione 
interrupted him and threw off-track what I think was originally Snape's 
attempt at teaching-through-intimidation. His point was not that 
Neville's potion should end up perfect, but that Neville should know how 
to do it alone. After she pipes up he became just as happy to corner her 
into disobedience (by threatening Trevor) as he was to take points off 
of Neville. And lastly she interrupted him when he was having his giant 
"vengeance is mine" speech in the Shrieking Shack. I think he found that 
one hard to forgive.

Granted, his treatment of her in GoF is even more unwarranted, although 
with the Rita Skeeter article I'd still be tempted to say he preferred 
having the attention on himself rather than on her. Some of it is just 
to amuse the Slytherin of course, or just because he can't resist a 
sarcastic remark when an opening jumps up right before his eyes, as with 
her teeth.

Also, I'm not sure if he has any sense of her being respectful and 
thoughtful towards him. Her concern over him in the Shack was while he 
was quite unconscious (and it's not like she so much as pulled out a 
handkerchief to stanch the flow of blood from his head). And he's not 
around to hear them debating whether he's the one trying to kill Harry 
or not.

So the question would be why does she defend him over and over? I think 
to some extent it's for structural reasons; Harry needs to be in the 
middle balanced by the little Ron devil on one shoulder telling him 
Snape is evil and the little Hermione angel on the other shoulder 
telling him Snape is good. And it does fit with her character that she'd 
usually be trusting of professors and give the benefit of the doubt to 
people in general. Maybe she feels really guilty about setting him on 
fire that time (when, if she hadn't accidentally knocked over Quirrell, 
she would have directly contributed to Harry's death). I like to imagine 
she's the authorial voice at these moments telling us the reader that 
Snape's really a good guy. Either that or she's discovered that he 
secretly owns a kitten, but that would be pure speculation. :-)

~~Porphyria


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Apr  7 08:21:54 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 08:21:54 -0000
Subject: Quidditch Captains / Married Adults / Hermione and Snape
Message-ID: <a8ovj2+m692@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37524

Spottydog wrote:

> It is my guess that Fred and George will be voted co-captains, 
> thereby giving the twins a larger role and a chance to develop
> "responsibility". 

While we were all in a frenzy of waiting for Book IV to be released, 
I thought that in it Fred and George would be chosen Co-Captains. 
(I think the Captain is chosen by the team members.) Some people said 
there can only be one captain, and I said I bet there can be an 
exception for Fred and George. Some people said they are too 
irresponsible to be captain, and I said being captain would force 
them to learn to be responsible.

However, after GoF, I don't think Fred and/or George will be chosen 
captain in Book V. I think the other team members will unanimously 
acclaim Harry as captain because now, as Triwizard Champion, he is 
an even bigger celebrity than he had been as star Seeker, rescuer of 
Ginny in CoS, and the Boy who Lived. I also think that even if the 
other team members voted for Fred and George to be co-captains, they 
would decline because they don't have time to be players AND captain 
AND prepare for their joke shop. I say, it's the joke shop (running a 
business) that will teach them responsibility now.

Speaking of the joke shop, Elfun Debbie either wrote or quoted (it has 
>s):
> Is the twins' crisis over because of the windfall of Harry's 
> Triwizard winnings? That seems too easy a solution to me for 
> characters who have already resorted to gambling and near-blackmail. 
 
I don't think the twins resorted to near-blackmail. I think they just 
tried to write a firm letter requesting an adult who definitely owed 
them money to Pay Up, and we overheard them cautioning each other not 
to make it sound like blackmail.

'Resorted to gambling' doesn't sound right, either. Don't all Brits 
have a bet now and then? As most USAmericans who work in big offices 
throw a dollar into an office pool connected in some vague manner with 
the Superbowl, or to group up to buy as many $1 lottery tickets as 
possible when the prize is going to be a record-setting number of 
millions.

Rohit Columbia Texan wrote:

> Isn't anyone interested at all in the fact that most of the adult 
> wizards and witches we've come into contact with so far are single?
> Think about it... all the Hogwarts professors... Cornelius Fudge 
> (as far as we know)... Bertha Jorkins...  Remus... Sirius (OK, so 
> he's been in prison for the past 13 years, that might have 
> SOMETHING to do with it :P)... maybe marriage and romance isn't 
> too common in this world, 

http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ which is Mike the Goat's 
wonderful search tool, pointed me to 
http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript3.shtml which 
includes:
  Q:- Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses? 
JKR:- Good question - yes, a few of them but that information is sort 
of restricted - you'll find out why. 

That is, some of the Hogwarts professors were or are married. We have 
absolutely no information on whether Cornelius Fudge is married -- 
when would his wife come up in the story? Sirius was in Azkaban, 
Remus is subjected to so much prejudice against werewolves that he 
can't even get a job, and Bertha was also an unpopular person.

> And btw, is anyone besides me curious on why Lupin didn't let 
> Hermione tackle the boggart either in Book 3 until the very end? 

I never noticed that I should be curious about it while I was reading 
PoA, but other people did. One speculation that I've seen is that he 
thought Miss Smartypants might have figured out that he was a 
werewolf and produce some Boggart that would give the secret away to 
others.  

> anyone wondering why Snape seems to single out Hermione so much as
> the target for his anger? (snip) I mean, Snape seems like the kind
> of professor who would like a know-it-all student like Hermione, 
> especially since she continues to be respectful and thoughtful 
> towards him,

Yes, oh yes! She seems to be so EXACTLY what he wants as a student. 
She's so bright and works so hard and listens in class and wants to 
know everything there is to know about potions (about all other 
subjects, too) -- NOT a dunderhead -- AND she is desperate to gain 
approval and liking from her professors: that first lesson, with her 
hand stretched further and further into the air, it seemed so 
incredibly OBVIOUS to me that she wasn't trying to impress the other 
kids, and she wasn't doing my elementary-school failing of getting 
bored with the idiotic search for a missing but obvious answer and 
wanting to supply the missing answer so that the class could go on to 
something else, hopefully more interesting. It was so incredibly 
obvious to me that she was trying to win Professor Snape's approval. 
Surely that is the motivation that he would approve highly of!

I had to understand Snape's feeling toward Hermione because I am 
writing a fanfic about Snape. The best I could figure out and/or make 
up was that he's convinced that she disrespects him (which, if true, 
it took him four years to make true!) and thinks she is mocking him. 
In that case, he is so far off the mark that I had to figure out 
and/or make up why he went into that particular fantasy universe, and 
all I could figure was that he was furious at her for interfering 
with his taunting of Potter and therefore tried to justify his 
resentment by interpreting everything she did in the worst possible 
way.

While I was writing & re-writing the above (it may not look like the 
result of great effort, but it is), 

Porphyria posted a much better statement:

> For one thing, I think part of the reason Snape is so annoyed by
> Hermione is that she has a tin ear for his rhetoric. She insists on
> interpreting him literally when he's making some sweeping dramatic 
> gesture,

But also said:

> Also, I'm not sure if he has any sense of her being respectful and 
> thoughtful towards him. Her concern over him in the Shack was while
> he was quite unconscious

He should have noticed that she respects him and tries to win his 
approval IN CLASS, not needed to wait until an adventure at the end 
of third year!




From a_big_schnoogle at hotmail.com  Sun Apr  7 09:04:16 2002
From: a_big_schnoogle at hotmail.com (~* Vicki *~)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 19:04:16 +1000
Subject: Prefect Powers (was: On following rules and Percy's predilications)
Message-ID: <F86tzJTK660GrKGfOy70001057c@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37525

Whirdy said:
Equally fascinating and perhaps a point of discussion I may have missed is 
the fact that Percy assessed points against Gryffindor when Ron was 
disrespectful to Percy "Prefect."   Later, Ron as Crabbe confronts Percy and 
Draco Malfoy is told that he should "show a bit more respect to a school 
prefect," Percy does not cry out "five points against Slytherin" for their 
disrespect.

~Could prefects only have power to take points over their own houses? They 
would still comand a certain level of respect from students because they 
*are* prefects, but they probably wouldn't be able to take points off other 
houses. All other prefect powers I can think of centre around their house, 
such as leading first years to the common room and dorms and being the 
students told the password at the beginning of each year. Can anyone think 
of any that don't?

Head Boy and Girl would probably be able to take points off all houses. they 
may even be told other houses dorm locations and passwords. Imagine the fun 
MWPP would have had once James became Head Boy :D

-Vicki


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  7 08:00:14 2002
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (ms_petra_pan)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 08:00:14 -0000
Subject: Stan and Ern saw only what they expected
In-Reply-To: <p0501040ab8d5518ee555@[66.149.197.187]>
Message-ID: <a8ouae+8psa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37526

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon <boggles at e...> 
wrote:

> At 2:39 PM -0500 4/4/02, Bernadette M. Crumb wrote:
> >Well, perhaps Harry didn't match up with Stan's internal image of
> >what THE BOY WHO LIVED looked like.  True, Harry is famous, but
> >we really don't have much indication that there are many accurate
> >wizardly photos of him out there...
> 
> No, but we are repeatedly hit over the head with his uncanny 
> resemblance to James, who seems to have been rather popular in his 
> day.  Stan might not recognize Harry through the resemblance, but 
> Ernie should, if they move in the Hogwarts circles.  I rather like 
> the theory that they both left Hogwarts after their OWLs, as it 
keeps 
> them out of the loop without kludging "extra" wizarding schools.
 
There's also the probability that neither Stan nor Ern expected to 
ever meet the "Famous Harry Potter."  Therefore, they are more likely 
to accept Harry's act than to go with their gut instinct in the form 
of an "unbelievable" suspicion.  Our own expectations often shape our 
interpretation of reality...often to the point of distorting our 
perception.

Stan and Ern's expectations are very different from Fudge's, who's 
actually on the lookout for Harry.  For that matter, these 
expectations differ from those of the members of the WW who went 
LOOKING for Harry in Little Whinging, hoping for a "celebrity 
sighting" (mentioned in the beginning of HPSS/PS).

Of course, this brings up the question of how these witches and 
wizards bypassed Dumbledore's security measures, the same measures, I 
assume, meant to prevent Voldemort from doing the same...though for 
entirely different reasons.  However Dumbledore's charm works, it 
seems to be able to differentiate between people who intend harm, and 
those who are harmless.

:) Petra                      





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sun Apr  7 10:17:07 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 10:17:07 -0000
Subject: Ron, Hermione, Snape
In-Reply-To: <a8o4e5+ivcq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8p6b3+o04f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37527

columbiatexan wrote:
> In any case, I personally am rooting for Ron... 
> it'd be nice to see him get some glory that doesn't involve 
> S.A.C.R.I.F.I.C.E.  

I am one of the devout followers of SACRIFICE (although I prefer my own 
acronym, RICK'S THE BOSS), because it's the only way Ron can actually 
fulfil his wish (see mirrow of Erised): Even if he's made quidditch 
captain, one of his brothers (Charlie, wasn't it?) has already been it, 
and he wouldn't get as much glory. Ron knows it: he confesses so to 
Harry in the train in book 1, IIRC. That's why I belive he's going to 
die in self-sacrifice and give Harry the opportunity to destroy 
Voldemort. 

On a side note, I think the reason I don't participate in shipping 
debates is because, since both Ron and Harry have very many 
possibilities of turning out dead by the end of the series, I have no 
desire of discussing who's going to end up with broken hearts over 
who's death.

> OK, almost done with this extremely long post--anyone 
> wondering why Snape seems to single out Hermione so much 
> as the target for his anger? 
<snip examples> 
> I mean, Snape seems like the kind 
> of professor who would like a know-it-all student like Hermione, 
> especially since she continues to be respectful and thoughtful 
> towards him, despite his extreme rudeness and cruelty towards 
> her. <snip examples> I mean, 
> that's just evil!  So what's going on here--she continues to be 
> respectful to him and even defend him to the boys, and yet he 
> goes out of his way to pick on her.  Why?
>
> rohit (columbiatexan)

I believe that Snape is afraid of Hermione. Very much so, in fact: he 
knows that Hermione, if she continues learning things, will be able to 
surpass him as a potion master in fairly short time. Snape knows that 
the trio have brewed the multijuice potion at least once, and that's 
not your everyday cup of tea. If Hermione is capable of brewing it, 
she's capable of brewing anything, and Snape doesn't anyone to be 
better than him at potions.

Hope that helps

Grey Wolf





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sun Apr  7 11:00:18 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 11:00:18 -0000
Subject: New anti-ship theory and acronym
Message-ID: <a8p8s2+1rd2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37528

In my last post I put down into writting a theory that my subsconcious 
(sp?) has been working on for a while. This post explains it more 
clearly.

Although I wouldn't like it to happen, I have the feeling that Ron is 
going to die in book seven, as part of a major strategy to bring 
Voldemort down, strategy he himself creates (just as we saw in the firt 
book in the chess scene). This theory, which I have explained before, 
has two acronyms: SACRIFICE and RICK'S THE BOSS.

There is also quite a strong current of oppinion which believes that, 
as a part of destroying Voldemort, Harry's going to sacrifice himself. 
Many books finish with the hero's heroic death, and the Potter series 
could be one of them. (I don't want this to happen either, but there 
you are).

Combining the two theories, we have the possibility of finding 
ourselves at the end of book 7 without major male characters, which 
would render most of the shipping debates pretty useless, since neither 
Hermione nor Ginny (nor any other female character) would have a major 
character to marry. Does, a new theory is born: 
H.A.R.D. S.H.I.P.W.R.E.C.K.
(Harry And Ron Don't Ship: Heroic Impulse Permits Winning, but Rather 
Expectedly it Causes a Killing Sacrifice).

Hope that helps

Grey Wolf

"... and thus the grey wolf continued to run tirelessly across the 
plains and mountains, forever chassing the good captain Tabouli in her 
desperate flight to protect her TAGS, knowing full-well that some day 
he would discover the inner workings of the machine. Until then, 
Tabouli's days would be filled with chagrin of the persecution of the 
grey shadow, and her nights with the spine-chilling sound of the wolf's 
baying."

Which means: Tabouli, my acronym breaks a few rules (like including the 
"and" but not the "but"), could you please devise a better one?

GW





From wynnde1 at aol.com  Sun Apr  7 10:27:58 2002
From: wynnde1 at aol.com (wynnde1 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 06:27:58 EDT
Subject: Marriage in the WW (Was Quidditch, Ginny's good qualities and more . . . )
Message-ID: <85.19b26abc.29e1792e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37529



rohit (columbiatexan) writes:


> Isn't anyon interested at all in the fact that most of the 
> adult wizards and witches we've come into contact with so far 
> are single?  Think about it... all the Hogwarts professors... 
> Cornelius Fudge (as far as we know)... Bertha Jorkins... 
> Remus... Sirius (OK, so he's been in prison for the past 13 
> years, that might have SOMETHING to do with it :P)... maybe 
> marriage and romance isn't too common in this world, or at least 
> not as common as it is in our world,


We do know of several wizards/witches who are married - the Weasleys, the 
Potters, the Longbottoms, the Malfoys, the LeStranges, to name a few. 
Certainly all the children who attend Hogwarts seem to come from complete 
family units (we don't know of any one-parent families or illegitimate 
children, do we?). As for the few you mentioned, Bertha Jorkins was single, 
but I seem to remember someone commenting in GoF that perhaps an elopement 
was the reason for her disappearance. Can't find the reference, though. And 
there is a bit of canon to suggest that Cornelius Fudge is married: in 
Chapter 28 of GoF, when Crouch, Sr. in the course of his insane rambling to 
Harry he says, "My wife and son will be arriving shortly, we are attending a 
concert tonight with Mr. and Mrs. Fudge." Yes, this is part of an insane 
ramble <g>, but it appeared that he was going back and forth between the 
present and actual memories of the past. So I have taken this as an 
indication that there is (or was at the time he was remembering) a Mrs. 
Fudge. Remus and Sirius are definitely special cases. <g> And, although you 
didn't mention him, we all know that Snape would be married if only Lily 
hadn't left him for James! <VEG> Just kidding. Sort of. (see below) <G>

As for Hogwart's staff, JKR has stated in an interview that some of the 
teachers are or have been married, that information about that is hidden for 
a reason, and that we'll find out more about that in a future book (I know 
interviews aren't exactly canon, but it can still be taken into 
consideration, can't it?). Even if that weren't the case, I don't think we 
can reasonably look at staff at a boarding school as an indication of what is 
happening in the world-at-large. My sense about boarding schools is that they 
are a bit of a world unto themselves, and that staff members lived (still 
do?) a fairly "monastic" lifestyle.

It is true that some of the younger generation seem not to have settled down 
- Bill and Charlie Weasley, for example. Perhaps because wizards and witches 
have extended lifespans, there is not as much emphasis on marrying at as 
young an age as would seem appropriate in the muggle world? (maybe wizarding 
biological clocks tick longer?). After all, James and Lily married fairly 
young, even by muggle standards. We just don't have evidence to know whether 
this is the norm in the WW or not. 

In any case, I don't think there is a lack of marriage and romance in the WW. 
 What I do see as not being represented is any sort of non-traditional family 
arrangement. No divorce, no single parents, no gay couples. Okay. They're 
children's books (sort of). So I'm not really expecting a gay couple. But I 
do wonder if JKR has deliberately painted a picture of a less complex world - 
maybe a more ideal one in this respect. (Sure, we might get AKd by evil 
wizards, but at least we don't have to worry about our parents getting 
divorced).There's is lots that could be said about this, but I think I'll 
leave it for now. Maybe someone else will jump on board (or perhaps it's 
already been covered sufficiently on the list).

A final thing - this is my first post to the list. I've been reading the 
posts for a few weeks now, and have browsed back through the archives a bit, 
mostly looking for stuff about my most beloved character Professor Snape, 
particularly Vampire!Snape stuff (will probably send in my application to 
join LOVESLAVE very soon). I'm thrilled to have found this list, and now that 
I've dipped a toe in the water with this first post, I'll probably have more 
to add to the discussion soon!

:-)
Wynnde



Wynnde A. St. John
Gullane, East Lothian, Scotland
<A HREF="wynnde1 at aol.com">wynnde1 at aol.com</A>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From hugonz at hotmail.com  Sun Apr  7 08:15:53 2002
From: hugonz at hotmail.com (tukiel)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 08:15:53 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's (was: Dumbledore, a relative of Harry's?)
In-Reply-To: <a8l8ma+9gr8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8ov7p+3m3u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37530

Mary said:

> > 
> > I have been thinking about Harry/Dumbledore again.  I still think 
> > that Harry is related to him somehow.  There have been a few 
> > arguments about the safety zone/Harry's relatives and how could 
> > Voldermort get to Harry at school if Dumbledore was a relative.  


There has been something that keeps bothering me: when Crouch Sr.
meets Harry at the grounds, he says something along the lines: 

"Are you his...?
Dumbledore's...?"

Of course it's very convenient that Crouch was nearly insane. However,
it's said that *sometimes* what he said was actually making sense.

Please note that Crouch was very informed, and held extreme secrecy on
his business. I believe he was trying to say Harry was Dumbledore's
"something", relative, protege or whatever.

What do you think?

Hugo





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sun Apr  7 12:02:20 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 12:02:20 -0000
Subject: Hermione and Snape
In-Reply-To: <a8ovj2+m692@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8pcgc+jj15@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37531

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> 
wrote:
> > Also, I'm not sure if he has any sense of her being respectful 
and 
> > thoughtful towards him. Her concern over him in the Shack was 
while
> > he was quite unconscious
> 
> He should have noticed that she respects him and tries to win his 
> approval IN CLASS, not needed to wait until an adventure at the 
end 
> of third year!

I think one of Snape's problems is his tendency to project his own 
mindset on other people.  Take his reaction to the Prank: Snape 
would never have set someone up for a werewolf encounter unless he 
actually meant to kill them; so he can't believe Sirius could've 
done it without meaning to kill *him*.  In Hermione's case, he's 
convinced that her behavior in class indicates a desire to show him 
up and make herself look important, because that's why *he* would've 
done it when he was a student.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From elfundeb at aol.com  Sun Apr  7 12:35:17 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 08:35:17 EDT
Subject: Twins' Gambling
Message-ID: <138.c52518d.29e19705@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37532

In a message dated 4/7/2002 4:22:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
catlady at wicca.net writes:


> Speaking of the joke shop, Elfun Debbie either wrote or quoted (it has 
> >s):
> > Is the twins' crisis over because of the windfall of Harry's 
> > Triwizard winnings? That seems too easy a solution to me for 
> > characters who have already resorted to gambling and near-blackmail. 
> 
> I don't think the twins resorted to near-blackmail. I think they just 
> tried to write a firm letter requesting an adult who definitely owed 
> them money to Pay Up, and we overheard them cautioning each other not 
> to make it sound like blackmail.
> 
> 'Resorted to gambling' doesn't sound right, either. Don't all Brits 
> have a bet now and then? As most USAmericans who work in big offices 
> throw a dollar into an office pool connected in some vague manner with 
> the Superbowl, or to group up to buy as many $1 lottery tickets as 
> possible when the prize is going to be a record-setting number of 
> millions.
> 
> 
I guess I see this differently.  Fred and George did not throw a dollar into 
the pool.  They pooled all their savings to make a highly risky bet.  From 
the accounts of Harry's Quidditch matches, we know that it's not that likely 
that a Seeker will grab a snitch if it means his team will lose.  Bagman 
knows that and gives them "excellent odds."  In fact, he's so anxious to take 
their money that he calls off Arthur's (mildmannered) protests and throws in 
an extra 5 galleons for their fake wand.

As for the near-blackmail, the conversation the trio overhears in the owlery 
indicates that George was concerned that the letter was blackmail, but was 
apparently persuaded by Fred that it was time to play dirty, and they sent 
the letter as written.  

I've always been a bit uneasy about the fact that Harry gave his Triwizard 
winnings to the twins.  I'm a bit suspicious of the twins in general, and 
think Fred in particular is quite self-centered (## 35912 and 35060), though 
I think I may be something of a lone ranger on this issue.  But I don't think 
their desperation for money was a red herring in the plot; rather, it shows 
how far they're willing to push things to achieve their objectives (though 
Bagman did play dirty with them).  I have a vague feeling that Harry will 
live to regret giving them the money.

Debbie, contemplating "Elfun Debbie" to distinguish myself from the other 
Debbie on this list


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Sun Apr  7 14:23:25 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 14:23:25 -0000
Subject: Hermione and Snape
In-Reply-To: <a8pcgc+jj15@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8pkot+6180@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37533

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> 
> I think one of Snape's problems is his tendency to project his own 
> mindset on other people.  Take his reaction to the Prank: Snape 
> would never have set someone up for a werewolf encounter unless he 
> actually meant to kill them; so he can't believe Sirius could've 
> done it without meaning to kill *him*.  In Hermione's case, he's 
> convinced that her behavior in class indicates a desire to show him 
> up and make herself look important, because that's why *he* 
would've 
> done it when he was a student.
> 

Maybe I'm being terribly unsubtle here, but my understanding of Snape 
is:
a. That he is naturally* irascible and bad tempered - which means 
that practically anything can irritate him 
b. That he is naturally pro-Slytherin and anti-Gryffindor, and 
therefore likelier to vent his spleen on Gryffindor students
c. That he naturally loathes Harry even more particularly, which 
makes Harry and, by association, any of Harry's friends, irresistibly 
annoying for him.

By "naturally" I mean that these are attributes that he has, that 
have nothing to do with external circumstances. What annoys him in 
Hermione is that she's a know-it-all, but he is equally irritated 
with Neville, because Neville is so inept. You'd think that it would 
be either one or the other, right? But that just proves my point - he 
is simply bad tempered, so that anything and everything grates on 
him, sparking the crossness and nastiness that lie so close to the 
surface.

But then, I've never been a Snape fan. I'm probably constitutionally 
blind to the layers upon layers of complexity that others seem able 
detect in him. That would be my loss, right? <g> 

Naama, wondering whether you can only love Hagrid *or* Snape, but not 
both




From kerelsen at quik.com  Sun Apr  7 15:13:21 2002
From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 11:13:21 -0400
Subject: Loving multiple characters exclusionary? (was: Re: Hermione and Snape)
References: <a8pkot+6180@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002301c1de46$c25c7240$aa21b0d8@kerelsen>

No: HPFGUIDX 37534


----- Original Message -----
From: "naamagatus" <naama_gat at hotmail.com>


> Naama, wondering whether you can only love Hagrid *or* Snape,
but not
> both

Well, I adore both characters.  I find both of them have a lot of
potential for character analysis and speculation because they are
both "mysterious."

By that, I mean that there are secrets in their pasts (especially
in the first book) that I ache to explore and reveal. Yeah, I'm a
nosy git, I guess! :)  They are both characters who figure
largely in Harry's life, albeit on different ends of the
emotional spectrum, and, going by the hints that JKR has given us
in the subsequent novels, they are both going to figure pretty
heavily in the final outcome--one way or another.

Perhaps the reason some people feel more inclined to love one
over the other of Snape and Hagrid has to do with whether they
prefer to explore the darker or lighter end of the moral scale.
It's very easy to see Snape as evil when we first meet him, and
it's obvious to all that Hagrid is a good guy at the first
introduction (even if he mischievously gave Dudley the pig's
tail!).  As the books go on, we find that both characters have
additional depths and secrets waiting to be discovered.  Perhaps,
though, the reason more people seem to want to know more about
Snape is because, even though he's now working on the side of
good, there's something in him that made him become a DE in the
first place, and there's frequently an allure to the darkness and
its unknowns that is seen to be lacking in the mysteries of a
"good" character.

Anyway, while I enjoy analyzing Snape, I equally enjoy analyzing
our beloved half-giant--one of these days, assuming I survive the
last three weeks of this semester--I'll write up my ideas about
Hagrid's mysteries and character and see if they make more sense
than what I've babble on about today.

Bernadette
(who is trying to reconcile muted group theory with the HP
universe as a way to keep sane while writing a research review on
the theory...)
"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).




From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com  Sun Apr  7 15:34:22 2002
From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 15:34:22 -0000
Subject: Marriage in the WW 
In-Reply-To: <85.19b26abc.29e1792e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a8potu+g4b4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37535


> We do know of several wizards/witches who are married - the 
Weasleys, the 
> Potters, the Longbottoms, the Malfoys, the LeStranges, to name a 
few. 


Erm...Do you think Dumbledore ever had a wife or partner? I really 
don't think he would have one now (She would be dead...probably). 

I think he is having an affair with McGonagall. <eg> :)


Rosie

http://magic-hogwarts.com





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sun Apr  7 16:13:08 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 16:13:08 -0000
Subject: Ron, Hermione, Snape
In-Reply-To: <a8p6b3+o04f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8pr6k+23q2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37536

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> I believe that Snape is afraid of Hermione. Very much so, in fact: 
he 
> knows that Hermione, if she continues learning things, will be 
able to 
> surpass him as a potion master in fairly short time. Snape knows 
that 
> the trio have brewed the multijuice potion at least once, and 
that's 
> not your everyday cup of tea. If Hermione is capable of brewing 
it, 
> she's capable of brewing anything, and Snape doesn't anyone to be 
> better than him at potions.

That might conceivably be true now (though I have trouble believing 
that Snape would consider a fourteen-year-old girl to be a threat to 
him, no matter how bright she was), but it doesn't explain why Snape 
is nasty to Hermione.  He was nasty to her before she brewed the 
polyjuice potion.  He was nasty from the very first day of the very 
first year, when she was just an anonymous eleven-year-old whose 
only crime was to be in Gryffindor.  No way he would've considered 
her a threat then.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sun Apr  7 16:34:23 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 16:34:23 -0000
Subject: Hermione vs Snape
In-Reply-To: <a8pr6k+23q2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8psef+uipm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37537

Marina wrote:
> That might conceivably be true now (though I have trouble believing 
> that Snape would consider a fourteen-year-old girl to be a threat to 
> him, no matter how bright she was), but it doesn't explain why Snape 
> is nasty to Hermione.  He was nasty to her before she brewed the 
> polyjuice potion.  He was nasty from the very first day of the very 
> first year, when she was just an anonymous eleven-year-old whose 
> only crime was to be in Gryffindor.  No way he would've considered 
> her a threat then.
> 
> Marina

Snape doesn't necesarily fear what Hermione is, but what she may 
become. Since wizards live to such age, Hermione will be a direct 
competition to Snape's mastery of potion for most of his life, so he 
already fears her. On your second point (Snape wasn't afraid of her in 
the first day), it could be true, but at that time he's not 
particularly nasty. Snape doesn't start to pick very hard on Hermione 
until she starts to seriously demonstrate her capabilities. OTOH, you'd 
say that someone who's learned everything the book says on potions is 
already someone who could, at some point, prove to be SERIOUS 
competition -- I doubt that those questions were easy; in fact, they 
were probably the hardest snape could think of.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sun Apr  7 16:52:10 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 16:52:10 -0000
Subject: Hermione vs Snape
In-Reply-To: <a8psef+uipm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8ptfq+hrao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37538

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> Snape doesn't necesarily fear what Hermione is, but what she may 
> become. Since wizards live to such age, Hermione will be a direct 
> competition to Snape's mastery of potion for most of his life, so 
he 
> already fears her.

Just because she does well in class?  I don't buy it.  Snape's been 
a teacher for a while; Hermione can't be the first good student he's 
had.  He doesn't know about the polyjuice potion (though he probably 
suspects something because of the missing boomslang skin), and the 
puzzle Hermione solved in PS/SS was a matter of logic, not potions 
expertise.  Nor has Hermione shown any interested in Potions as a 
career; her favorite subject seems to be Arithmancy.  And Snape is 
*arrogant* -- he's not going to walk around in fear just because 
some upstart Gryffindor student shows promise in his subject.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Apr  7 17:12:14 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 17:12:14 -0000
Subject: Sleeping woman/marriage/Snape vs Hermione/Ron's fate/SHIP
Message-ID: <a8pule+ftdo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37539

Boggles wrote:
>Having said that, I agree with the person who noted that, strictly 
speaking, toads are not traditional Libido Beasts.  I would also 
add that if Trevor represents anyone's libido, it's Neville's, not 
Hermione's.<

The toad is the libido beast in Brothers Grimm story "The Three 
Feathers."  The simpleton Prince, a very Neville-like character, 
finds a magical trapdoor and follows it into a cave under the 
earth, where he finds a whole colony of toads, one of which is 
eventually transformed into a beautiful princess who becomes 
his wife. 

Since Trevor  the Toad is male, I think he's more likely to 
represent Hermione's libido than Neville's.
Of course the flaw in this sort of analysis is that it can be used to 
prove almost anything, as Tabouli showed us in her hilarious 
frog prince post.  On that note, one additional Frog Prince/Neville 
parallel: the Princess got her frog after dropping a ball down a 
well; the ball-shaped Neville gets his toad after dropping out of a 
window. :-)
---
On marriage and the wizarding world:
Wynnde writes:

>Certainly all the children who attend Hogwarts seem to come 
from complete 
>family units (we don't know of any one-parent families or 
illegitimate children, do we?

We have at least two failed marriages: Tom Riddle's parents, 
and Hagrid's parents.

On Snape vs Hermione:
Rohit Columbian Texan wrote:
> anyone wondering why Snape seems to single out Hermione 
so much as
> the target for his anger? (snip) I mean, Snape seems like the 
>kindof professor who would like a know-it-all student like 
>Hermione,  especially since she continues to be respectful and 
>thoughtful  towards him,

and Catlady added:
>It was so incredibly obvious to me that she was trying to win 
Professor Snape's approval. 
>Surely that is the motivation that he would approve highly of!

Snape's message to her may be the same as Draco's: "Keep 
that big bushy head down, Granger."  As in Draco's case, we 
don't know whether this is a manifestation of prejudice or a 
disguised effort to protect her from it. Of course Hermione only 
wants approval but   perhaps her approval-seeking bothers 
him...was Snape trying for approval when he joined Voldemort?

On Rons' fate:
Grey Wolf wrote:
>I am one of the devout followers of SACRIFICE (although I 
prefer my own 
>acronym, RICK'S THE BOSS), because it's the only way Ron 
>can actually fullfil his wish (see mirrow of Erised): 

I had an awful, awful thought this morning: what if Ron's vision in 
the Mirror of Erised, "he sees himself standing alone, the best of 
any of them" foreshadows that  Ron will live but all his brothers 
are going to die? Would that placate all the people who think R/H 
H/G is just too sappy? Probably not. ;-) 

Another little Shippy note: it occurs to me that Penny's favorite 
theory,Farmer in the dell (FITD), has already been set up, though 
not with Penny's preferred cast. Ginny likes Harry, who likes Cho, 
who likes Cedric, who's dead.

I agree though, that the romantic complications are mostly going 
to serve as comic relief with occasional pathos, and will not 
assume center stage. 

Pippin
happily welcoming Wyndde to the group and making room for 
her in the LOVESLAVE stateroom of the good ship LOLLIPOPS. 
Mind the stalactites.




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sun Apr  7 20:16:59 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 13:16:59 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione vs Snape
In-Reply-To: <a8ptfq+hrao@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <6A77DAF6-4A64-11D6-B637-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37540

A few things to add to my reply to Rohit's question now that it's the 
next day. I was arguing that Snape resents Hermione because she 
constantly misreads his dramatic and rhetorical gestures and he finds 
this an affront to his authority.

Another example of my point is the DADA class where Snape assigns the 
werewolf essay. Here again, he's trying to get a secret message across 
to the class (one he might believe to be in their own best interests). 
He probably is quite well aware of the fact that the class hasn't gotten 
that far in the book yet, and he might even realize on some level that 
it's really the fault of Lockhart and Quirrell that the class is so 
behind. But he doesn't care about any of that a bit, he's just trying to 
make a point about how little they know about werewolves so he can 
justify assigning the essay. And he expects to be obeyed. So when 
Hermione again takes him literally as if he really misunderstood where 
they were in the book and as if he really wanted a demonstration of her 
own knowledge, this he interprets as an interruption and an undermining 
of his authority.

Every time he snaps at her for being a know-it-all it's always in a 
charged situation in which he experiences it as a rejection of his 
authority. She doesn't respond to him in the way he expects to be 
treated.

In fact I think that his annoyance at her and her defending of him are 
linked. He's used to intimidating people with his Specter of Death 
routine, the swooping robes and uncanny voice and so forth, and she 
always interprets him in a completely literal, prosaic way, as a 
teacher. He can make her upset (although she bounces back fast) but he 
*never* succeeds in frightening her, and I think this just plain 
irritates him. But it's exactly the fact that she does interpret him as 
just a teacher, and not as Evil Incarnate, that enables her to see him 
objectively and therefore defend him when she thinks the actual evidence 
is in favor of his innocence.

Also, as to why he doesn't appreciate her for just being a great student 
(a non-dunderhead) -- I think the last thing Snape wants is a protegee 
or apprentice or anything like that, least of a all a Gryffindor. I 
think he can't show too much favor or approval to any Gryff because he 
is invested (for whatever reason) in favoring the Slyth kids. But I 
think having a real admiree who looks up to him and wants to learn 
everything about potions from him, I think this would oblige him to be 
sort of nurturing and emotionally involved with them, and I think he's 
quite averse to being that way. I know you can make the argument that he 
is like that with Draco, but I don't really see him as being nurturing 
or mentoring with Draco either. I don't really think he wants to be 
emotionally involved with any student to that extent. So Hermione is a 
double problem, both in that she's a smart Gryffindor, and that she 
wants a type of approval he has no intention of giving. However, in his 
defense, he is giving her top marks, isn't he? (She's at the top in 
everything.) So he's rewarding her where it counts, on her permanent 
record. He probably sees this as fair enough treatment.

I do agree with Naama that Snape is naturally irascible and inclined to 
bash anything attached to Harry. But I think that in addition Hermione 
rubs him the wrong way. Naama, just for you I'm going to post something 
later today about why I absolutely love both Snape and Hagrid. :-)

Oh, and I just have to support Marina in the question of whether Snape's 
afraid of Hermione or not: I admit Snape has insecurity issues, but I 
can't believe they're to the extent of finding her a professional 
threat. He just can't be afraid of her, he's indeed to arrogant for 
that. In fact, he'd probably get along with her a little bit better if 
they were structurally equals, just as he seems to get along with the 
rest of the very talented faculty. Then he wouldn't expect her to 
constantly reaffirm his authority, he'd just respect her from whatever 
distance he chose to keep.

~~Porphyria


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sun Apr  7 17:28:25 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 03:28:25 +1000
Subject: Attitudes toward authority, Ron's complex, romance, SHARK ATTACK
Message-ID: <003701c1de59$b5045460$ce34c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37541

Very interesting reflections on JKR's portrayal of ambition from Debbie, very interesting.

Debbie:
> I think Ron and Hermione are both partly right, based on their own perceptions of Percy. Hermione's refusal to believe Percy could ever throw a family member to the dementors, IMO, reflects the her compassion as well as her own interaction with Percy.<

Also, perhaps, Hermione's instinctive respect for authority figures and rules, reflected in her initial refusal to suspect Snape (and then assertion that Snape must be OK because Dumbledore respects him).    After Harry's treatment at the hands of the Dursleys, we wouldn't expect him to trust or respect authority figures.  However, it's interesting that *Ron* is so willing to believe the worst of authority figures like Percy the Prefect and Snape and Lockhart.  After all, his parents seem to be kind and caring, as far as well can see.  Something to do with the losing fight for attention with his older brothers and baby sister?  Perhaps knowing that adults are fallible and not always trustworthy through watching the foibles of adult older brothers?

Another thing that's always struck me a bit of a stretch is the position Percy appears to hold within the Ministry.  Seriously second in command in the Department of International Magical Cooperation straight out of school?  Directly supervised by the head of that department I can cope with, but seriously the person to take over when Crouch is indisposed?  Even if the orders came from Imperioed Crouch himself, surely *someone* would have questioned it.  Or is the problem that the only person with higher authority that the the senior Ministers is clueless (or secretly Evil) Fudge?

Debbie:
> IMO the twins' constant ridicule of Percy has so affected Ron that he's unwilling to take any action in pursuit of goals; rather he accepts recognition for passive events such as being attacked by Sirius in his dormitory or being rescued from the lake. Perhaps someone with a psychiatric background could tackle this.<

Oo, also interesting.  Too scared and self-conscious to try for fear of being upstaged yet again? (therefore if he fails, he can always tell himself he didn't really try anyway). Hmm.  Could be, could be.  Note that initially at least *Harry* hasn't done anything conscious to secure his fame either, he just passively lay in his cot and deflected Voldemort's AK.  *And* was made Seeker by virtue of breaking a school rule in defence of Neville.  How depressing for a boy who's already lived his life in his brothers' shadow.  Not to mention Ginny, who just sat there passively being the only girl and thereby getting special attention.  You could argue that Ron does have examples around him that passively awaiting something to happen can provide results...

On Tom Riddle, could Trelawney's first prediction have been that the Dark Lord would arise out of the Hogwarts Head Boy?

For those who weren't around for the last incarnation of the Ginny debate, I wrote quite a long post on her on the 5th of January, entitled "Old idea, time travel, & Ginny's oomph".  My position at the moment is wait and see if she develops a bit more oomph in ensuing books before making a ruling.  I did provide the devout Ginny defenders with an acronym, though: any new takers for a GIANT CUSHION?  (Ginny Isn't A Naive, Trivial Child Unworthy of Security Harry's Interest: Object Now!)

rohit:
> perhaps Ron and Hermione getting together will isolate Harry sufficiently to seek friendship (and more?) with Ginny.  However, again, is it just me or is that too saccharine sweet (?)<

Weeeell, depends on how it's done.  Love interests and romance and relationships need not be saccharine sweet by definition; under the wrong circumstances they can be hideous, tortured, plot-driving.  If, as JKR has promised, she's going to crank up the horror in the last three books, death and gore everywhere, she could easily slip in some romance as a counterpoint (though I doubt it will take centre stage).  After all, she did in GoF.  Couldn't we have a traumatised Harry, almost catatonic with shock and grief, being held and comforted and sliding into kissing with Cho/Ginny/Hermione/whoever (note, alphabetical order)?  After all, Molly did soothe him maternally in GoF after Cedric's death.

Grey Wolf:
> H.A.R.D. S.H.I.P.W.R.E.C.K. (Harry And Ron Don't Ship: Heroic Impulse Permits Winning, but Rather Expectedly it Causes a Killing Sacrifice).

Which brings me to the increasingly cheeky Grey Wolf, breathing bloodstained breath down the good Captain's neck with his suggestion that JKR might include Ron *and* Harry in the carnage, thus rendering any romantic attachements fruitless and tragic (cor!  The slavering predatory instincts of those lupines!  Next he'll be adding Hagrid and Dumbledore and Snape to the body count.  And what about Hermione?  Surely we need to add some female corpses to the collection.)

Grey Wolf:
> "... and thus the grey wolf continued to run tirelessly across the plains and mountains, forever chassing the good captain Tabouli in her desperate flight to protect her TAGS, knowing full-well that some day he would discover the inner workings of the machine. Until then, Tabouli's days would be filled with chagrin of the persecution of the grey shadow, and her nights with the spine-chilling sound of the wolf's baying."<
>
>Which means: Tabouli, my acronym breaks a few rules (like including the "and" but not the "but"), could you please devise a better one?<

Alas, Captain Tabouli is still confined to her cabin, exchanging increasingly angry semaphore with her ISP.  However, if the paws of the wolf are behind her incarceration, he has made one fatal error.  The MAGI (Magnificent Acronym Generating Instrument) is out of his reach, locked in the chamber with her.  Smiling grimly, she slips Grey Wolf's application into the machine, and presses the lever for "Nautical theme".  It offers:

SHARK ATTACK (Sadly, Harry And Ron Kindle Amorous Ties Then Are Cruelly Killed)

...then reconfigures to include Ron and Harry's glorious sacrifice for the cause near the end of the series:

TWO BRAVE HARBOURS (They Win Overall, But Ron And Voldemort's Enemy Harry Avoid Romance Because Of Ultimate, Regrettable Sacrifice).

Tabouli (stealthily making a call to an Irish wolfhound breeder)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sun Apr  7 17:40:00 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 03:40:00 +1000
Subject: Potterverse teaching staff
Message-ID: <004401c1de5b$3ebabc20$ce34c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37542

Sorry, GIANT CUSHION should have had "Securing Harry's Interest" (not Security, grarghh).

Wynnde:
>My sense about boarding schools is that they are a bit of a world unto themselves, and that staff members lived (still do?) a fairly "monastic" lifestyle.<

Well, the Potterverse does seem old-fashioned in various ways (perhaps due to lack of contact with Muggledom since the Wizarding Secrecy Act), so it may have what appeared to be the model in Enid Blyton school stories, where the almost all-female staff all appeared to be single and then left when they got married (presumably because women don't work any more once they have a breadwinner to provide for them.  1950s ish?)

Debbie:
> I'm a bit suspicious of the twins in general, and think Fred in particular is quite self-centered<

Ooo!  The twins are Ever So Evil?  Where are the hedgehog hunters?

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Sun Apr  7 18:13:00 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 18:13:00 -0000
Subject: Snape's treatment of Hermione
In-Reply-To: <1FB2B398-4A12-11D6-B637-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a8q27c+u1qp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37543

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
> Granted, his treatment of her in GoF is even more unwarranted,
although 
> with the Rita Skeeter article I'd still be tempted to say he
preferred 
> having the attention on himself rather than on her. Some of it is
just 
> to amuse the Slytherin of course, or just because he can't resist a 
> sarcastic remark when an opening jumps up right before his eyes, as
with 
> her teeth.
> 
Snape's behavior in the colliding curse scene might well betray 
Snape's judgement about the particular students.  He tells Goyle
to go the the hospital wing, because Goyle doesn't have sense 
enough to realize what to do.  Hermione understands what to do;
I think she just wanted Snape to show a bit of sympathy.  With his 
treatment of Malfoy, & Co., Snape is cultivating for LV, a next 
generation of Death Eaters who will be wimps.

He may have deducted points from Grifindor because Hary should
have known better than to get into a fight in the hall.  He had no
such hopes for Malfoy.  Snape is producing a Draco who is 
dependant on others, and has no sense of responsibility for his 
actions. Whether or not this is his intention, we will see.

Tex





From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  7 18:48:52 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (Rohit Puskoor)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 11:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Twins, HARD SHIPWRECK, and Marriage
In-Reply-To: <1018185137.2075.35631.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020407184852.43907.qmail@web13402.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37544

Great posts y'all.  And I really appreciated your
replies to my questions about marriage in Rowling's
universe.  Though, I'm gonna have to respectfully
disagree on the notion that early marriage is not the
norm--it may not be "the norm," but judging from the
two most prominent examples we have of married
wizarding couples (the Potters and the Weasleys),
people do tend to meet their life partners while at
Hogwarts (I believe it's in the 4th book that Molly is
telling the kids how she and Arthur were caught by the
old groundskeeper while on a midnight stroll way back
when)

I don't think Fred is uncaring or selfish; in fact, of
the two twins, I think he's the one who displays more
unselfish concern for others (not that George isn't
equally kind, but Fred seems the more paternal of the
two).  For example, in CoS, he scolds Oliver for
telling Harry to catch the snitch or die trying when
Harry ends up in the hospital wing.   And in PoA, he
comforts Harry and tells him that there had to be a
time he didn't catch the snitch after the Gryffindor
vs. Hufflepuff match.  (On a side not, I thought it
was really funny on rereading that in the Gryffindor
VS. Slytherin match, when Angelina got pelted HARD by
the Slytherin beater's club, Fred was the one who
exacted revenge--so badly that he got a foul for it :P
 Did we ever find out whom George took to the ball? 
it'd just be really funny if he took Alicia, since he
does something similar "for her.")

Oh, Grey Wolf, did ya' have to verbalize something
I've been thinking about for a while now, with HARD
SHIPWRECK (imo, not a bad acronym at all!).  As i said
before, there's a whole variety of potentially great
endings that Rowling can choose to end this series,
and it's a shame she can only pick one, and this one
would be terribly devastating.  Imagine us being sad
for Ron after he dies but somewhat relieved that at
least Hermione and Harry are safe, and then getting
blindsided by Harry's death later on in book 7!?!  And
then Hermione can be like Elizabeth at the end of
Lagaan (Indian movie) and live alone for the rest of
her life...  or maybe she'll die too, just to make us
entirely depressed.  Though part of me thinks the
likelihood of Rowling killing off the hero is even
lower than that of her killing off Hermione, just 
because it'd be a horrible, horrible thing to do and
not a very inspirational way to end the series--she
seems to only have started replying to the questions
of whether she's going to write books about Harry's
later years with a retort that the readers are very
certain Harry's going to survive beyond the series. 
Before she'd just say she probably wasn't, which makes
me think it's just her witty British way of shutting
people up who keep asking her the annoying question
she's already answered a million times, and scaring
the readers a little.  

Ron as little shoulder devil, Hermione as a little
shoulder angel... not ENTIRELY accurate, but it gave
me a very funny image nonetheless. :P

Rohit (columbiatexan)

=====
"That is one of my more brilliant ideas, and between you and me, that is saying something."

-Professor Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, J.K. Rowling

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




From Edblanning at aol.com  Sun Apr  7 20:27:22 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 16:27:22 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Hermione and Snape
Message-ID: <14a.bd9ee66.29e205aa@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37545

Marina:
> I think one of Snape's problems is his tendency to project his own 
> mindset on other people.  Take his reaction to the Prank: Snape 
> would never have set someone up for a werewolf encounter unless he 
> actually meant to kill them; so he can't believe Sirius could've 
> done it without meaning to kill *him*.  In Hermione's case, he's 
> convinced that her behavior in class indicates a desire to show him 
> up and make herself look important, because that's why *he* would've 
> done it when he was a student.

Yes. I see this tendency of Snape to project his own mindset onto other 
people as a major personality trait. In fact one of the things I've been 
meaning to do when I have time is to go through the books interpreting his 
utterances in this manner to see what light it sheds on what's going on in 
his mind.

Related to this is what I see as his immature tendency to jealousy. This 
relates to what Porphyria has talked about in her posts. He really wants to 
be the centre of attention, doesn't he? Where McGonagall or Lupin can take 
pleasure in the achievements of a student, Snape sees only someone stealing 
his limelight. He doesn't enjoy teaching dunderheads, but in a way, I do 
think he sees Hermione as a bit of a threat (*pace* Marina, Porphyria), not a 
professional threat, but  to an extent a psychological threat, someone who 
reminds him that he's not the biggest fish in the sea, that there are other 
people as clever as he is. Chiefly,however, she is a threat to the atmosphere 
he creates in his classroom. No, she can't be the first intelligent student 
he's had, but she may well be one of the few who's been quite as up front 
about it, whose need to show off is as great as his own. Back to projection 
again. 

That, I think must account for the immediate antipathy (she wasn't really 
associated with Harry until after Hallowe'en, was she?) Just think of the 
impression he was trying to create - *was* creating - in that first potions 
lesson. The waxing lyrical, the humiliation of Potter, and then that dreadful 
little know-it-all ruining everything with her hand stuck in the air all the 
time to answer those questions that they weren't supposed to be able to 
answer and which were supposed to push Harry and the others into a stunned 
realisation of their ignorance and their dependence on him as their teacher.

Without realising it, she is extremely disruptive to his style of teaching. 
We are told that he is a teacher who can keep a class quiet without effort. 
In a way, her hand constantly hovering and her desire for attention 
interrupts that. Also, she takes on a *teaching* role, particularly with 
Neville. More interference. Whatever his feelings for Neville, I'm sure Snape 
doesn't like an eleven year old girl teaching him more successfully than he 
does himself.

After Hallowe'en, particularly since Snape was one of the ones who found the 
trio together with the unconscious troll, she must have been indelibly 
associated with Harry in his mind and therefore additionally disliked by 
extension.

But as Porphyria points out, it is Hermione's literal mindedness, her 
blindness to the games Snape is playing with her and the other students that 
allows her to be objective. It is largely through Hermione's eyes that, until 
the bombshell of the pensieve, we first begin to realise that Snape isn't all 
bad. Harry has much bigger problems internalising this. For him the issues 
are personal.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Apr  7 20:59:48 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:59:48 -0000
Subject: Ron / Dumbledore / untraditional family unit /Snape
Message-ID: <a8qc04+m0kq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37546

Grey Wolf wrote:

> I am one of the devout followers of SACRIFICE (although I prefer my
> own acronym, RICK'S THE BOSS), because it's the only way Ron can 
> actually fulfil his wish (see mirror of Erised): Even if he's made 
> quidditch captain, one of his brothers (Charlie, wasn't it?) has 
> already been it, and he wouldn't get as much glory.

As long as they're trying to go on with normal life as much as 
possible, Ron *should* seek a glory different from all his brothers 
by DOING something different than all his brothers. I keep saying he 
should learn to play a musical instrument, ideally guitar -- people 
like people who play guitar and sing at parties, and he might become 
a superstar like the Weird Sisters. Or he could combine his longing 
for glory with his longing for money and the strategic instinct he 
shows in chess, by learning to play poker and becoming a 
semi-professional gambler.

Hugo wrote:

> There has been something that keeps bothering me: when Crouch Sr. 
> meets Harry at the grounds, he says something along the lines: 
> "Are you his...? Dumbledore's...?"  

I always had the feeling that he meant 'special project' or 'secret 
weapon' rather than 'great-grandson' or 'protege'.


Rosie Flowerfairy wrote:

> Erm...Do you think Dumbledore ever had a wife or partner? I really
> don't think he would have one now (She would be dead...probably). 

I think that when Dumbledore said that what he saw in the Mirror of 
Erised was himself being given a pair of socks for Christmas, he was 
telling only the truth but not the whole truth: it was the pair of 
hand-knitted socks that his late wife or late mother always gave him 
for Christmas, and it is really being with the deceased PERSON which 
is his heart's desire.

> I think he is having an affair with McGonagall. <eg> :)

I think not, as I am convinced that McGonagall and Hooch are a 
couple, have been for a long time. I think he might be having an 
affair with Madam Pomfrey. However, it must be officially secret 
(everyone pretends not to know) because he speaks of her as 'Madam 
Pomfrey admired my new earmuffs" not as "Poppy".

Pippin wrote:

> Wynnde writes:
> > Certainly all the children who attend Hogwarts seem to come from
> > complete family units (we don't know of any one-parent families
> or illegitimate children, do we?
> We have at least two failed marriages: Tom Riddle's parents, and 
> Hagrid's parents.

If my theory is correct, Tom Riddle is an example of illegitimacy 
rather than of failed marriage.

> Snape's message to her may be the same as Draco's: "Keep that big 
> bushy head down, Granger." As in Draco's case, we don't know
> whether this is a manifestation of prejudice or a disguised effort
> to protect her from it. 

That is even more difficult to perceive in canon Snape's behavior 
than in canon Draco's.

> Of course Hermione only wants approval but perhaps her approval-
> seeking bothers him...was Snape trying for approval when he joined
> Voldemort?

Hmmm... Whose approval? Lucius, Karkaroff, his parents, the future 
Mrs Lestrange? Which would affect him to feel that Student seeking 
approval from Teacher is a prelude to Death Eating? (which would go 
along with the people who think his perceived kindness to Slytherin 
kids is really a cruel (they seem to think that being cruel to 
Slytherins is OK) plot to make them weaklings who can be destroyed.

Naama wrote:

> Maybe I'm being terribly unsubtle here, but my understanding of 
> Snape is: (snip) c. That he naturally loathes Harry even more 
> particularly, which makes Harry and, by association, any of
> Harry's friends, irresistibly annoying for him.

I can't deny your a) and b), but Hermione WASN'T Harry's friend that 
first day, or any day until Halloween.

Porphyria wrote a number of great things including:

> Every time he snaps at her for being a know-it-all it's always in a
> charged situation in which he experiences it as a rejection of his
> authority. She doesn't respond to him in the way he expects to be 
> treated.
(snip)
> I think the last thing Snape wants is a protegee or apprentice or 
> anything like that, least of a all a Gryffindor. (snip) I think 
> having a real admiree who looks up to him and wants to learn 
> everything about potions from him, I think this would oblige him to
> be sort of nurturing and emotionally involved with them, and I
> think he's quite averse to being that way.

You write such interesting and thought-provoking things.... 




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Sun Apr  7 21:57:35 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 21:57:35 -0000
Subject: Snape v Hermione the Mudblood - and a little Lollipops
Message-ID: <a8qfcf+1s0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37547

I've read all the theories about Snapes treatment of Hermione with 
great interest, and have another idea to add to the melting pot:

Isn't it possible that another reason that Snape hates Hermione is 
that she is a "Mudblood". Whilst we do not know why Snape became a DE 
or why he chose to recant, there must surely have been some aspect of 
the "ideology" that appealed to him. Of course, it might have been 
pure hatred of the marauders, or dissatisfaction with Dumbledore, but 
Voldemort's message might also have driven the young Dark Arts 
fanatic.

Snape might have seen the error of his ways, but that does not 
automatically mean he sees Muggle-born wizards as the equals of 
Purebloods.

Sometimes I wonder if many of us (well me anyway) are so convinced of 
his love for Lily that we forget that he could have remained bigoted 
despite this. Whilst I believe in the Lollipops theory, this could 
actually add to Snape's hatred of "Mudbloods". Lily, the muggleborn 
spurning him could have poured fuel on his hatred. Snape could have 
fallen for Lily despite his prejudice.

Perhaps as recent posters have suggested, Hermione shares some of the 
attributes of Lily Evans. Snape might not like to see these, 
particularly in a friend of the loathesome Harry Potter.

Ali




From theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com  Sun Apr  7 19:52:03 2002
From: theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com (Theresa ryan)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 19:52:03 +0000
Subject: Who gets married (don't worry-not a ship)
Message-ID: <F156JI2d0ie1DHjqBUq00001f54@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37548


"Wynnde" wrote:

>As for Hogwart's staff, JKR has stated in an interview that some of the
>teachers are or have been married, that information about that is >hidden 
>for
>a reason, and that we'll find out more about that in a future book.

I reply:
   It would be interesting to see who gets married- there's only a few 
teachers that we know about- Snape, Sprout, Hagrid, McGonagall, 
Dumbledore(does he count, being principal?) and the DADA teachers. None of 
these, to me, seem very likely to be married with kids!! Any theories? 
(Maybe there's been a discussion about this but I checked the FAQ and there 
wasn't anything. )
   Let the good typewriters...umm, type!
     Lazyscientist (the lurkingest lurker, finally coming out of the shadows 
to comment!)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.





From rob_p114 at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Apr  7 21:12:50 2002
From: rob_p114 at yahoo.co.uk (rob_p114)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 21:12:50 -0000
Subject: Ron / Dumbledore / untraditional family unit /Snape
In-Reply-To: <a8qc04+m0kq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8qcoi+mr1g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37549

I have to say, when it comes to Snape, I personally am of the school 
of thought that he is very much a (albeit very dark) reformed 
character. I agree with the notion that he is breeding weak future 
death eaters for Voldemort, and think it is ingenius, whoever, 
thought of it! Dumbledore seems to know how to handle him, and 
seeing as Snape has already reformed from his dark ways, it seems 
unlikely he would return, having 'seen the light' as it were!

The fact that Snape is (seemingly) asked to return to Voldemort as a 
spy for Dumbledore at the end of GoF only supports his cover. He is 
seemingly the perfect death eater, yet is actually actively 
undermining the Dark Wizardfs by developing weak willed youngsters 
such as Malfot Jnr. to join the fold. 

There is obviousely a lot whichis unknown about Snape, but I believe 
he really will turn out as a dark hero. Every way you look at his 
actions, he is seemingly protecting Harry and Co, by trying to keep 
them alert, and willing to fight him. He presents them with exactly 
the image of a dark wizard they need in order to form the right 
impressions of Voldemort and his Death Eaters, so they can fight 
them with the amount of conviction they will need later in the 
series. Snape is an incredibly complex, yet brilliant character, I 
think, and well worth further discussion!

Cheers, 

Rob





From ebondragoon at mindspring.com  Sun Apr  7 22:27:44 2002
From: ebondragoon at mindspring.com (Christine Peterson)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 15:27:44 -0700
Subject: [SHIP] In Defense of Ginny, Round II (was Re: Quidditch, Ginny's good 
 qualities and more)
Message-ID: <3CB0C7E0.DEE363A8@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37550

Yep, I'm back for more. *wicked grin* Pop open some more butterbeer and enjoy...

rohit (columbiatexan) wrote:
> Ron going after Hermione with Harry helping him out or acting as a bemused
> bystander is too saccharine sweet for my taste, and the vice versa happening
> with Harry and Ginny is likewise too saccharine.

Why? I've noticed a lot of those who don't support H/G have made comments like
this, and yet none of them have sufficiently explained _why_ they think it's too
"sweet." Well, isn't romance _supposed_ to be sweet, at least on some level?
Granted, there's no need to overdo it with roving minstrels and cherubs shooting
arrows *smirks*, but I find it perfectly acceptable for "romance" between two
people who love each other to be expressed in quiet, happy moments together. The
nervousness of a first kiss... working up the courage to say "I love you."
What's wrong with "sweet" things like _that_? And they're certainly realistic
enough for the age level of the Trio, Ginny and their peers. Not to mention the
fact that with the war against Voldemort heating up in the next three books,
something sweet/happy/funny every now and then to release a bit of the tension
will be a Very Good Thing, not just for the characters, but for us as readers...
Tabouli and Jo Serenadust had nice responses to this last issue in their own
replies (and btw, Tabouli, I will definitely take a GIANTCUSHION!).

Now, what _I'd_ really like to know is where the heck this notion that the
concept of Harry and Ginny is "too sweet" actually came from. It seems to me
that the anti-H/G crowd has again chosen to take the bits of canon that they
think support their view, without taking into account the totality of Harry and
Ginny's individual _and_ shared experiences. A poster on another forum that I
frequent covered the other side of this coin in a nice, brief post that I'll
quote here because she said it far better than I can (I'll insert my own
comments where necessary):

>>Whatever we have to say, there will _always_ be the person out there who lumps
>>all H/G stories into the stereotype of *fluff*. I've encountered more than a
>>couple of people in the fandom who have said, "Oh, Harry/Ginny? Squick. It's
>>nauseatingly sweet and fluffy. Ick."
>>And personally, I don't understand it. H/G is just as angsty as the next ship,
>>if not more so. <snippage> For one, there's Ginny's side. She has spent ages
>>crushing upon Harry. In GoF, we see her become less biasd in her feelings
>>towards Harry; the two are developing a very faint, yet still-there sort of
>>friendship rather than the "hero-worship" many label on Ginny. And then, just
>>as she's getting over Harry, he turns around and likes her. Too much. For both
>>H and G. Confusion. Angst. More confusion. The general teen life.

The last bit is leaning more towards a potential scenario if H/G does happen in
canon, but I hope you get the general idea. Ginny is growing up... Harry is
growing up... and things will inevitably change. Getting back to that "Harry and
Ginny as "fluffy" is Hogwash" post, the writer brings up a potentially shocking
theory that I hadn't thought of, and yet... it makes a lot of sense:

>>And still, there's the regard to Tom Riddle. I assume that Ginny was deeply
>>scarred by that. I'm sure she has trust issues. And wow, golly gee, who should
>>look somewhat like Tom but her very own Harry? Even though she _knows_ and
>>_loves_ Harry, she still could be haunted by memories of Tom. And when she
>>looks at Harry....well, yes."
>>And of course, I couldn't possibly leave out the Voldemort thing. I've hardly
>>any need to say a thing in this case. We all know about it: Harry, the Dark
>>Lord, and Ginny, a possible pawn for Voldemort to play. That's clear. And with
>>the aforementioned factors: eek. Yeah, wouldn't that be a fluffy story? :\

Brrrr! I don't know about the rest of you, but the thought of Ginny waking up
screaming from nightmares of Harry turning into Tom and going on a Dark Arts
Rampage O'Doom, all the while saying "It's all for you, Ginny," gives me the
willies! And of course she logically would know that it's not real, it's just a
dream, but... *shudders* And as for the Ginny-as-Voldemort's-pawn idea, while
_that's_ certainly not new, it is still a valid possibility at this point as we
know so little about the diary's lasting impact on Ginny. After all, we all know
how much JKR likes to whack us all upside the head with a nice, shiny 2x4 when
we least expect it. *winces*

The point I'm trying to make here is: Harry and Ginny, all sweet and fluffy, all
the time? Bah, humbug. *snickers* And what I've covered here is in all
probability just the proverbial tip of the equally proverbial iceberg. I think
there is a great deal of _serious_ emotional potential in H/G that few (if any)
outside of the ship have really taken the time to consider, much less openly
acknowledge, that can balance out this supposed "fluff factor." And I for one
trust that Rowling is perfectly capable of writing H/G, R/Hr, H/H, or whatever
ships she intends to have without turning the books into "Harry's Creek" or
"Hogwarts 90210." *bemused grin*

Now, to get back on track after that rant-y little tangent...

rohit (columbiatexan) continues:
> And I will be really disappointed if Ginny ends up resembling Lily Potter, and
> Harry just notices it one day and falls madly in love with her

Ugh! No, thank you. I don't see this happening at all... frankly, I'd be very
surprised if Harry was at all eager to get close to _any_ girl in "that way"
after GoF... let's see, the boyfriend of the girl Harry's interested in gets
killed because he was with Harry in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ouchie. I
can certainly see Harry pulling back from wanting a relationship like a turtle
retreating into its shell when it's been poked. He won't be able to push
Hermione and Ron away; they've known each other too long, and they're in too
deep. Ginny, on the other hand, is in just as deep in her own way, but she and
Harry don't know each other nearly as well. It'll be quite fun to see how this
ends up playing out in canon. ^_^

As for the generational parallels theory... feh... *shrugs* Dumbledore comparing
Harry vs. Draco to James vs. Severus in PS is one thing; that instance was most
likely intended solely as a way to give the reader an idea of what the James vs.
Severus situation was like without actually giving us any hard facts, in order
to leave the skies wide open for lots of bombshells in future books. But Ginny =
Lily... _if_ it comes up at all, I can see it being on a symbolic level only,
possibly meant as a source of confusion but not a serious, earth-shattering plot
point. The impression I've gotten from the books on any _actual_ parallels is
rather... iffy, at best. I think it may just be one more way of keeping readers
off balance as to what to expect next. JKR is damned canny, isn't she? *laughs*

rohit (columbiatexan) continues further:
> --someone on
> this list was quoted in the HPfGU FAQ deal as saying that the romantic
> pairings need to "raise the stakes" with regards to the plot--Rowling isn't
> just going to pair people off for romance's sake. 

Eh, I'm not too sure about that. While I don't think that Rowling is "just going
to pair people off for romance's sake," I also don't think that romantic
pairings are necessarily part-and-parcel to "raising the stakes" plotwise. As
has been mentioned before, the Trio and everyone else is going to have their
plates full to overflowing in dealing with Voldemort and the Death Eaters
running amok. They're going to need _something_ happy and as uncomplicated as
possible in their lives to balance things out at least part of the time,
otherwise... well, then why the heck are they even fighting, anyway? ^_^

rohit (columbiatexan) continues even more:
> Ginny still has the potential to get to know Harry for himself, and vice
> versa. Christine, i should have had the vice versa in my last post, and I
> respectfully disagree that it voids what I was saying.

Perhaps, but the way that your original statement was phrased, it almost seemed
like you were "laying the blame," as it were, for Ginny and Harry not knowing
each other better specifically at Ginny's feet. What I tried to do with my
wordplay was turn it around to show that if _anyone_ is to blame for them not
knowing each other better, it's equally on each other. Their actions (or, more
correctly, their _lack_ of action) cancel each other out, putting their
barely-there relationship into a state of immobility. I can't wait to see what
JKR might try to break the deadlock... *laughs*

Oh, and by the way, your little "Ron as little shoulder devil, Hermione as a
little shoulder angel" line in the "Twins, HARD SHIPWRECK, and Marriage" thread
left me rolling! Thanks! I _so_ needed a good laugh after filling out my taxes!
>_<

Christine
--
Proud member of G.I.A.N.T.C.U.S.H.I.O.N. (Ginny Isn't A Naive, Trivial Child
Unworthy of Securing Harry's Interest: Object Now!)




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  7 22:42:03 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:42:03 -0000
Subject: Marriages/Hermione&Ron/Logicvs.Emotions
Message-ID: <a8qhvr+9her@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37551

Well - I believe Albus Dumbledore *was* married, but his wife's been 
long dead. (Supposedly she used to knit wollen, grey socks for him 
Muggle Way - Love by every loop. AD would miss that, I'm sure). And I 
do think Albus had several children (who also had children) - so that 
AD would be grandfather. Somehow he just seems to me as a 'sweet 
grandfather'-type. Found balance between Mind and Emotion.

Minerva McGonagall is not, I think. It might even be that she's one 
of the grandchildren of AD who did not marry or have kids. Just the 
sort of woman who's never been married and never will. The way she 
informs them of the on-coming party... She believes that out of long 
laughter becomes tears of sorrow. One who chooses Logic Over Emotions.

Madam Hooch? I think she *is* married. And so's Poppy Pomfrey.

Severus Snape- no. Logical, much like McGonagall... If I were Amor, 
I'd put those two together!

Remus Lupin, Sirius Black - no.

Quirrell, Lockhart, Moody, Crouch - no. Hmm... No DADA teacher so 
far - will the next one be - *Mrs.* Figg?

Prof. Sprout - married.

Hagrid - no. But might become engaged with Madame Maxime.

Others -- we just don't see them enough to tell.

Hermione&Ron -- Yes, I see it coming unless either one dies first. 
Maybe they even marry during 7th or 6th book? Considering that 17 is 
legal age of adulthood... I see Ron getting in trouble for it... 
attacking Malfoy. "He threatened my *wife*, Professor". Kissing 
Hermione in Gryffindor Common Room "You say I may not kiss my *wife*? 
What kind of stupid person made that sort of "rule" up?" AND, this 
would be something Ron's brothers haven't done yet - none of THEM is 
married. (Or we'd seen Ron's sister-in-law by now). Oh - and then we 
can get a *pregnant* Hermione, getting nasty at every one, refusing 
to drink a potion "might hurt my baby, Sir, I better not", Ron, as 
father, standing up for her and the baby... AND Ron can finally do 
something his siblings haven't! Molly and Arthur giving him advice 
about fatherhood... Baby at Hogwarts! Wouldn't you just love it?

And what comes to Harry finding love in marriage... So far, he's not 
ready for that. If it comes, it's well after 7th book - if he lives.

Anyway, I agree with Hermione referring to intellect, study and logic 
while Ron&Harry are more emotional. And as I believe that Magic in HP 
relates to emotions more than mind - strong one at least, she'll have 
*more* to learn, things her books (or McGonagall) can not teach her.

Love is strong enough to overcome AK as Harry Potter proves. I think 
that to cast AK it takes pure hatred - and only pure love can beat 
it! Yet... No counter-curse, not a charm, not a jinx/anti-jinx, not a 
hex... What about a blessing, given with pure love by a kiss onto 
child's forehead? Mother's do that all the time.

Someone said Harry's scar was more of Lily's love rather than 
Voldemort's AK... Yes - particularly as the scar is/was the only 
thing Harry liked about his appearance when he could remember only 
the green light! But more - A blessing of protection. Like the one 
the Witch of North gave Dorothy Gale of Kansas...

I think the scar's a result of a battle of purest love and purest 
hatred; purest good, purest evil. No doubt which wins, is there? Not 
any more, not since Harry Potter survived AK-curse...

-- Finwitch





From boggles at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  7 23:32:03 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:32:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snapestuff, Frog Prince, Dumbledore, and The Scar
In-Reply-To: <a8pkot+6180@eGroups.com>
References: <a8pkot+6180@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <p05010400b8d68307fa43@[66.149.197.187]>

No: HPFGUIDX 37552

At 2:23 PM +0000 4/7/02, naamagatus wrote:
>
>Naama, wondering whether you can only love Hagrid *or* Snape, but not
>both

Not in the least, as I'm quite fond of both characters.  They both 
express part of the "half-and-half-ness" that I find so fascinating 
about the series - half-DE, half good guy; half wizard, half monster. 
(Along with other half-nesses about both of them.)



At 4:34 PM +0000 4/7/02, grey_wolf_c wrote:
>OTOH, you'd
>say that someone who's learned everything the book says on potions is
>already someone who could, at some point, prove to be SERIOUS
>competition -- I doubt that those questions were easy; in fact, they
>were probably the hardest snape could think of.

I certainly hope they weren't, as I've never read the Potions book 
and I knew the answers to two out of three (and could have taken a 
pretty good guess at the first one).  The Bezoar and 
monkshood/wolfsbane questions are based on real-world herb lore.



At 5:12 PM +0000 4/7/02, pippin_999 wrote:
>On that note, one additional Frog Prince/Neville
>parallel: the Princess got her frog after dropping a ball down a
>well; the ball-shaped Neville gets his toad after dropping out of a
>window. :-)

Closer to canon: Neville gets his toad after dropping out a window, 
gets his [Remem]b[r]all from his grandmother, loses it while flying 
(re-enacting the drop without the bounce), has it stolen by Draco, 
and has it rescued (spectacularly) by Harry.  Bangy slashy SHIPpy 
stuff if ever I saw it, and reason enough for a male Neville to have 
a male libido, no?  ;)



At 8:59 PM +0000 4/7/02, catlady_de_los_angeles wrote:
>Hugo wrote:
>
>>  There has been something that keeps bothering me: when Crouch Sr.
>>  meets Harry at the grounds, he says something along the lines:
>>  "Are you his...? Dumbledore's...?" 
>
>I always had the feeling that he meant 'special project' or 'secret
>weapon' rather than 'great-grandson' or 'protege'.

For some reason, I read this as Crouch Sr. still time-slipping, and 
mistaking Harry for James - I thought he meant "ally," "friend," or 
even possibly "general".



At 10:42 PM +0000 4/7/02, finwitch wrote:
>Someone said Harry's scar was more of Lily's love rather than
>Voldemort's AK... Yes - particularly as the scar is/was the only
>thing Harry liked about his appearance when he could remember only
>the green light! But more - A blessing of protection.

 From SS 17 (US (obviously) paperback edition):

"Your mother died to save you.  If there is one thing Voldemort 
cannot understand, it is love.  He didn't realize that love as 
powerful as you mother's  for you leaves its own mark.  Not a scar, 
no visible sign . . ."  Dumbledore then goes on to say "it is in your 
very skin."

Unless Dumbedore is dissembling, which I tend to think he doesn't do, 
the scar is indeed the mark of the Avada Kedavra that failed to kill 
Harry, and not the sign of Lily's love, which is integrated into 
Harry's self without a mark.

-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!



From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Apr  8 00:14:40 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:14:40 -0000
Subject: Marriages [skipped : Hermione&Ron/Logicvs.Emotions
In-Reply-To: <a8qhvr+9her@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8qndg+3a6i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37553

Finwitch replied to Theresa Lazyscientist:

> Well - I believe Albus Dumbledore *was* married, but his wife's 
> been long dead. (Supposedly she used to knit wollen, grey socks for
> him Muggle Way - Love by every loop.

OOOH! Who besides me said that his late wife knitted socks for him?!

> And I do think Albus had several children (who also had children) -
> so that AD would be grandfather. Somehow he just seems to me as a 
> 'sweet grandfather'-type. Found balance between Mind and Emotion.

Dumbledore being 150 years old, his grand-children could possibly be 
Great-grand-parents themselves.

> Minerva McGonagall is not, I think. It might even be that she's one 
> of the grandchildren of AD who did not marry or have kids. Just the
> sort of woman who's never been married and never will.(snip)  Madam
> Hooch? I think she *is* married. And so's Poppy Pomfrey.

McGonagall is 70, so Dumbledore is 80 years older than her,  
and *could* be her Great-grand-father.

I strongly believe that McGonagall and Hooch ARE a long-time married 
couple (altho' childless). They keep it secret from the students and 
probably the parents out of either fear of homophobia or McGonagall's 
sense of privacy. I see McGonagall as very much like a cat, very 
strictly maintaining her dignity and privacy in public, very curious 
but cautious, she can defend herself (and her kittens i.e. the 
Gryffindor students -- Mother cats discipline their young-uns with 
those claws), but in private quite appreciative of sensual pleasures 
such as a hot bubblebath, backrub, etc. I also see her as the 
dominant personality in that partnership.

I believe that Poppy Pomfrey is married to Herb Pomfrey, a 
herbologist -- they met in the course of their professions -- and is 
a grand-mother or great-grandmother. (I'm sure Pomfrey is at least 
as old as McGonagall, who thinks she's older?)

Their children being too grown-up to need to be cared for, not even 
help with babysitting anymore, Poppy and Herb were free to give their 
house to a descendent and continue their careers. Poppy took this 
respected but residential job at Hogwarts (where she may be having an 
affair with Dumbledore) and Herb has a job that involves constant 
travel around the British Isles giving lectures. They get together 
over the Christmas and summer holidays, each time at the home of 
another one of their numerous adult descendent.

> Severus Snape- no. Logical, much like McGonagall... If I were Amor,
> I'd put those two together!

He may think he's logical, but he's a terribly emotional person, 
flying into rages and projecting his feelings onto other people. He's 
far too bitter to be good marriage material. Nonetheless, people have 
paired him with McGonagall, Dumbledore, Filch, and Draco (usually not 
at the same time), and other people have said he will never love 
again because of having lost his first love, possibly Lily, Mrs. 
Lestrange, Lucius...

Also, he's said to be 35 or 36, same ratio of his age to Minerva's as 
of Minerva's to Albus's. How much does relative age matter to Ships?

> Remus Lupin, Sirius Black - no.

> Quirrell, Lockhart, Moody, Crouch - no. Hmm... No DADA teacher so 
far - will the next one be - *Mrs.* Figg?

Lycanthropy for one Marauder, Azkaban for the other. I like to be a 
Sirius/Remus shipper, anyway. And young Crouch was in Azkaban since 
he was 19. If he had been married then (not likely), his young wife 
probably got an annulment and tried to go on with her life and forget 
about him. Would it have been a Death Eater girl? Then why wasn't she 
in the torture-the-Longbottoms conspiracy, too? 

As for real Moody, all we really know is that he was a great Auror, 
lost a number of body parts, and became paranoid. He could have been 
married and his spouse was killed in an attack on him, maybe the one 
that took off his leg. That would increase a person's paranoia.

I *hope* Quirrell was single! Imagine if he was married, if he left a 
young wife and a baby or two at home when he went to Albania on a 
research trip, if he seems a little distracted when he returns home 
and quickly rushes off 'to prepare for the school year' and the next 
thing she knows, he's dead as a result of having been taken over by 
Evil!

Lockhart is too stuck on himself to marry for any reason other than 
career advantange. He would only marry if marriage to that person was 
more advantageous than being an 'eligible bachelor'. I could imagine 
him being married to Rita Skeeter (each could help the other's 
career). There is no sign of Lockhart/Skeeter in canon, but 
memory-wiping her husband would be something that Skeeter could be 
annoyed at Harry for.

> Prof. Sprout - married.

I agree. I suppose that her children are grown. Who thinks she might 
live in Hogsmeade with her husband? ... or live anywhere with her 
husband and Floo to Hogsmeade. Floo makes commuting easier. But she 
is Head of Hufflepuff House and therefore probably needs to be 
available at any hour of day or night if there is an emergency. Same 
age as McGonagall or older? Or younger?




From vdegroote at wi.rr.com  Mon Apr  8 02:40:11 2002
From: vdegroote at wi.rr.com (Vicky D)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:40:11 -0500
Subject: Hogwarts Graduation & Harry's POV
References: <1018185137.2075.35631.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <004501c1dea6$b48ea830$6401a8c0@FAMILY>

No: HPFGUIDX 37554


Uncmark wrote:

> Is one of us completely wrong? I thought Fred, George, and Angelina
> all graduated at the end of GoF. Wood graduated at the end of PofA
> and was signed with Puddlemere United Reserve Team, GofF Ch.7

& Grey Wolf wrote:

they've got one last year before leaving
Hogwarts. I know it's a bit confusing - I also though they had
finished, since they've already got ground work done for their shop. If
you're unsure, check the Lexicon, you'll be able to find canon on the
matter to your heart's consent.

Now me:
Has anyone ever noticed or have ideas on what happens when a student
"graduates" from Hogwarts?  There doesn't seem to be any mention of a
ceremony.  Maybe it takes place prior to the End of Year Feast?  Noticed in
the flick-which-must-not-be-mentioned that the only itme the students were
wearing the pointy hats was at last feast-could this indicate
formal/official function/ceremony.  We see things through Harry's eyes, so
perhaps since graduation hasn't been of significance to him, we don't hear
about it.  Or maybe it's just attended by graduates.  I've always been a bit
curious about this.  It seems it would be a bit sad after 7 years to just be
done, nothing special happens, feast and go home like any other year. :(

Hey, BTW, while we're on the topic of seeing things through Harry's eyes
(sort of),  In chapter 1 of GoF, is Harry dreaming all of that Riddle House
backstory?!  If so, where did all that info come from?  Was Voldemort
thinking about those events & it translated to that backstory in Harry's
dream? The part where Frank is seeing the firelight in the windows of the
house and then creeping in , eavesdropping etc, how would Harry get that
info?  I guess I assume that he doesn't dream all that and his dream doesn't
include all f those details.  Not sure i like that sudden channge of point
of view.  Just started reading GoF again (I think 3rd or 4th time through) &
I guess I awlays assumed the whole thing was Harry'dream, but now realize
that doesn't make much sense!  Also, if Harry heard Voldemort talking to
Wormtail in detail about killing Bertha Jorkins (as Frank heard) wouldn't
Harry feel he should mention that part of his dream to someone as well?
While everyone is wondering about what happened to her and Harry dreamt that
V killed her after extracting info from her, well, I can't imagine him
keeping that to himself!  So, is this the only instance in which we, the
readers, know more than Harry?  I for one, don't want to know more than
Harry!  I guess at the beginning of Book One we get an omnicient POV-Uncle
Vernon's day, Dumbledore leaving him on the step.  Is there any other time
that JKR does that?

Kitty AKA Vicky
Happy to be home from vacation & get back to ignoring my children while
sifting through e-mails. ;)






From pennylin at swbell.net  Mon Apr  8 03:24:06 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:24:06 -0500
Subject: Hogwarts Graduation
References: <1018185137.2075.35631.m12@yahoogroups.com>
 <004501c1dea6$b48ea830$6401a8c0@FAMILY>
Message-ID: <008d01c1deac$d722ae40$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37555

Hi --

Vicky asked: <<<<Has anyone ever noticed or have ideas on what happens when a student "graduates" from Hogwarts?  There doesn't seem to be any mention of a ceremony.  Maybe it takes place prior to the End of Year Feast?>>>>>

The British don't typically have American-style "graduation" ceremonies.

See --

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hogwarts.html

There's a section on "Life after Hogwarts" towards the end with a mention of the lack of a graduation ceremony at Hogwarts.

Penny    


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From pennylin at swbell.net  Mon Apr  8 03:19:50 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:19:50 -0500
Subject: Ginny (SHIP)
References: <3CB0C7E0.DEE363A8@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <008301c1deac$3e723da0$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37556

Hi all --

Christine asked:

<<<I've noticed a lot of those who don't support H/G have made comments like this, and yet none of them have sufficiently explained _why_ they think it's too "sweet." Well, isn't romance _supposed_ to be sweet, at least on some level?  <snip> Now, what _I'd_ really like to know is where the heck this notion that the concept of Harry and Ginny is "too sweet" actually came from. It seems to me that the anti-H/G crowd has again chosen to take the bits of canon that they think support their view, without taking into account the totality of Harry and Ginny's individual _and_ shared experiences.>>>>

Oh, I'm all for romance being "sweet"!  Yes, definitely.  It's not H/G that I think is too sweet; it's OBHWF (One Big Happy Weasley Family).  Both R/H *and* H/G with the series ending with all the Weasleys, plus Harry & Hermione, sitting around a dinner table happily celebrating the engagements of R/H and H/G -- that scenario is what I find too sweet.  I think for most people OBHWF is either smile-inducing or makes them want to gag.  I fall into the latter category.  

I suppose, thinking out loud, that I wouldn't mind H/G as an ultimate outcome nearly as much if they had a mature adult relationship before committing to marriage.   Most H/H shippers, myself included, prefer to see the teenage characters be teenagers: date around, have fun (to the extent they can have fun during a War that is), grow up before committing to a romantic relationship.  Live a little in other words.  

On that note, I do note that I must respectfully disagree with Rohit on the following point(s):

<<<<Though, I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree on the notion that early marriage is not the norm--it may not be "the norm," but judging from the two most prominent examples we have of married wizarding couples (the Potters and the Weasleys), people do tend to meet their life partners while at Hogwarts (I believe it's in the 4th book that Molly is telling the kids how she and Arthur were caught by the old groundskeeper while on a midnight stroll way back...>>>>

Sure, Arthur & Molly *met* at Hogwarts (or before).  They obviously had at least one late-night "date" while still students.  But, we don't know (a) that neither dated anyone else beforehand, (b) that they dated exclusively, (c) that they moved straight from dating to marriage, or (d) that they married straight out of Hogwarts.  Those are a whole lot of unknowns in my book.  Ditto the Potters.  We've no idea that they dated *at all* at Hogwarts.  We don't know if they were the same year or not.  We don't know anything about who else they might have dated or when.  In the case of the Potters, we do know that they were reasonably young when they had Harry [this is based on Snape being roughly 35/36 at the time of GoF per JKR chat].  But, since they could have been 17/18 when they left Hogwarts, it's entirely possible that they didn't date at all until after Hogwarts.  So, I'm going to step out on a limb here & say that really we don't much of anything about dating, sexuality, marriage or divorces in the wizarding world.  This is all about to change because Harry is about to be interested in those types of things.  But for now, I'd say we have very little knowledge at all, let alone a sense of "norms."  

Someone (Finwitch?) mentioned that maybe Ron & Hermione might marry in 6th or 7th year at Hogwarts.  I can't imagine JKR doing this.  Even if the age of consent is 17 & even if wizards do marry earlier than muggles, one would hope (in my case one would hope fervently) that they would at least complete their basic schooling before taking on a marriage.  Yikes!  

Switching back to Christine -- this next bit is a quotation from "another poster on another forum that Christine visits."  This is a good time to remind everyone to be sure that you have someone's permission when you quote their posts from another group (I've had the bad experience of running into people quoting my posts on another group without my knowledge or permission).  Anyway, this person said:

<<<In GoF, we see her become less biasd in her feelings
>>towards Harry; the two are developing a very faint, yet still-there sort of
>>friendship rather than the "hero-worship" many label on Ginny.

I guess I'd have to wonder what sort of "still-there sort of friendship" this person sees since....well....we just don't see any one-on-one interaction between Harry & Ginny in GoF.  None that I recall anyway.  So ... I guess I'm mystified as to how one could make this statement.  Her one shining moment of glory (:::cough:::) is the pre-Yule Ball scene, and, of course, Ron and Hermione are both there for that conversation.  And, uh ... if Harry were having any conversations with Ginny or thoughts about Ginny, we'd know about it since the books are from his POV.  If nothing else, there'd be a throw-away reference to Harry remembering that he'd left his Divination homework in the Great Hall when he had breakfast with Ginny that morning.      

<<<<<<<< I think there is a great deal of _serious_ emotional potential in H/G that few (if any) outside of the ship have really taken the time to consider, much less openly
acknowledge, that can balance out this supposed "fluff factor.">>>>>>>>>

Sure, there's potential.  There's potential for a fair few number of pairings really.  I wrote a fairly detailed post about Ginny awhile back & strangely enough I came across it yesterday while searching the Archives for something unrelated.  Anyway, rather than rehash it all, it's at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/33194

I noted in that post that while JKR has done a really excellent but subtle job of conveying Ron's burgeoning romantic interest in Hermione, she has most definitely *not* done this with Ginny.  We get this slight sense about Ron's interest in Hermione in CoS, which increases ever so slightly in POA & then when we get to the Yule Ball of GoF, we're not at all shocked that Ron has an obvious crush on Hermione (even if he himself is blind to it).  However, with Ginny, JKR's not only not shown Harry ever have any thought whatsoever about Ginny as a girl (other than being mildly annoyed whenever anyone mentions her crush on him), she's also done nothing to develop Ginny as a character.  I still maintain that this is a possibly the biggest sign in my mind that H/G isn't likely to happen.  If we'd had even slightly more development of Ginny as a person, I'd be more open-minded about the possibility.  But, for now I just question why JKR would give so little development to Ginny if she did intend her to be the ultimate love-interest of the hero.  There needn't have been a tremendous amount of development, but I would think she would have spared more word allotment to rounding out Ginny's character, even gradually, than she has.  

rohit (columbiatexan) continues further:
> --someone on
> this list was quoted in the HPfGU FAQ deal as saying that the romantic
> pairings need to "raise the stakes" with regards to the plot--Rowling isn't
> just going to pair people off for romance's sake. 

Christine says:

<<<<Eh, I'm not too sure about that. While I don't think that Rowling is "just going
to pair people off for romance's sake," I also don't think that romantic
pairings are necessarily part-and-parcel to "raising the stakes" plotwise.>>>>>

Just to clarify, though I didn't make the point originally: what Ebony said was that conflict drives plot.  To the extent that the romance is to be anything more than comic relief/lightening the mood fluff, then there must be conflict.  Oh bother, I'm really not saying it quite as nicely as Ebony did originally, so just check out Message 10997 if you're curious:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/10997

Incidentally though, back to character development (or lack thereof), I guess I'd note that it seems to me that if Rowling's intent was simply to use the romance line as a minor "mood lightener" in an otherwise dark period in the series, I wonder why she would leave Hermione's romantic feelings so ambiguous.  I mean: why make Ron's interest so horribly obvious & leave Hermione's feelings such a wildcard?  Might it be conflict?  <g>  I'm sure there are lots of other reasons (and I'll get told there are), but I'm fairly convinced that if R/H was meant to be a foregone conclusion, we readers wouldn't be in too much doubt about it at this juncture.  I note that many fervent R/H shippers are willing to concede that Hermione's feelings are not clear-cut at this stage.  So, if all the romance is to do is lighten the mood, what would be JKR's motivation in hiding/clouding Hermione's interest level in Ron?  Why not depict it so that all the readers are thinking "Aww...isn't that *sweet* ...they both like each other but they're typical adolescents & don't know it yet"?  I mean, if it's *just* a mood-lightening subplot, why make it complicated, right?      

David said:
> Poor Devin got a lot of flack for pairing Ginny with Harry a few weeks ago
> because she is the only other character to have had a serious run-in with
> Voldemort.  I believe he is on to something, though.

Christine agreed:

<<<<*nods* As do I. Even if nothing romantic comes of it, there is the undeniable
fact that Ginny has had an experience that gives her an understanding of Harry
on a level that no one else has (at least, for the moment).>>>>>>

I'm sorry, but I always wonder about this whenever it gets raised because, well, Ginny was *unconscious* during the entire battle between Harry & Riddle in the Chamber.  She says that the last thing she remembers before losing consciousness was Riddle coming out of the diary.  So, I guess I'm always perplexed about this so-called "bond" between them.  Yes, she wrote in a diary & maintained correspondence with him over a period of months.  But, when he materialized, she faded to black.  :::shrugs::: 

Christine again:

<<<It's possible that Hermione's assured assertiveness might very well eat Harry's quiet introspection alive. Not a pleasant thought.>>>>>>>>>

Possible, but then again, isn't Ginny an extrovert too (Ron says she usually never shuts up right?)?  Or, is it that she's a chatterbox around her family but in general an introvert?  What *is* her personality type?  We don't know.  The bottom line is that we don't know Ginny much at all at this point IMO.  Yes, I know she's allegedly going to have a "bigger role" in OOP.  "Bigger than what" is what I'd like to know.  Bigger than CoS?  Bigger than her screentime in the entire series combined?  It really won't take much for her to have a "bigger" role IMO because so far, there's been very little development at all.  

Rohit said: > I'm actually really hoping Ginny doesn't end up with Harry, because I don't think they'll ever be on an equal footing

Christine asked: Why? Could you please explain how you reached this conclusion despite the obvious lack of canon evidence?

I just wanted to note that Rohit wasn't making a conclusion; he was stating his belief.  Beliefs don't generally require canon "evidence."  For the record, as I said earlier, I agree with Rohit to some extent.  We don't know enough yet though.  I don't think it's impossible that they could have a relationship with both of them on equal footing, but there's no indication of what Ginny brings to the table as yet.  IMO.

Penny
(who wants to comment on The Sleeping Woman posts but is too tired tonight.... and has no experience whatsoever with psycho-babble)    




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  7 23:50:49 2002
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (ms_petra_pan)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 23:50:49 -0000
Subject: Grey Lady prob. not Voldy's Mom
In-Reply-To: <F28ykjcZXEQC0JxmyrA0000da8e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a8qm0p+81tq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37557

"Meghan Stancil" <megalynn44 at h...> wrote:
> Anyways, earlier there was an idea that Voldy's mom could be a 
> ghost in the thread about Voldy's mom. Well, that lead me to think 
> of the book's mystery ghost. The Grey Lady. She is barely mentioned 
> in the books, but JKR has alluded to her signifigance in Interviews 
> I have read. Her importance was furthered when she kept popping up 
> in movie scenes. She looked rather young, thus she died young. And 
> since JKR had so much input on the movie, that probly was not a 
> mistake.
> 
> So, could the Grey Lady ghost be Voldemort's mum?

Though the film is not canon text, strictly speaking, considering the 
degree of JKR's involvement with it and how little canon text tells 
us about the Grey Lady, I agree that the film is the only source for 
inquiring minds who want to know more about this ghost.

But nothing about the Grey Lady's portrayal in the film support the 
theory that she may be Voldemort's mother, IIRC.  The Grey Lady's 
costume is definitely not of the time period befitting a woman who 
could have given birth to Tom Riddle, Jr. near the beginning of the 
last century.  And no, being killed while attending a costume ball 
doesn't do it for me.  :)  Her numerous appearances in the film only 
support the probability that this is a character who may have a more 
pivotal role in the books to come than the one she's played so far; 
since I find her intriguing, I hope she doesn't turn out to be a 
cinematic prop on legs.  :)  Good of you to turn the spotlight on 
her, Meghan.  She cuts quite a romantic and tragic figure and I'll 
have to keep a more vigilant eye out for her the next time I read the 
books.

So how would the Grey Lady become more important?  Now that the "Ways"
have parted, which camp will she hinder? which will she aid?  If we 
can figure out which time period her clothing belongs to, we might 
have a shot at placing her in the history of WW and figure out who 
she was without resorting to pure conjecture.

Any further thoughts on the movie aspects of this post belong to the sister list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/

:) Petra         
   
      
         
  
     
 






From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net  Mon Apr  8 01:11:02 2002
From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 21:11:02 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore a Gryffindor?
In-Reply-To: <1018185137.2075.35631.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020407210754.00a6fec0@mail.fantasysales.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37558

Boggles (is this right?*S*) wrote~~~~~


>~~~~~I'd gotten the impression from that scene that Dumbledore is, in
>fact, Gryffindor's heir.  I'm also quite certain, from his references
>to the Dursleys as the only family Harry has left, that he's not a
>close relative of Harry's.  Fanfic aside, that means that Harry isn't
>the heir of Gryffindor, although it doesn't rule out their both being
>descended from Godric by completely different paths.~~~~~



He could have the Gryffin items because he was in Gryffindor house when he 
was a student at Hogwarts. I know that I still have memorabilia from when I 
was in school.



---
Kendra Grant-Bingham
~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~
"Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count."






From alina at distantplace.net  Mon Apr  8 01:40:41 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:40:41 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape v Hermione the Mudblood - and a little Lollipops
References: <a8qfcf+1s0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a101c1de9e$662b5740$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37559

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: alhewison 

  Sometimes I wonder if many of us (well me anyway) are so convinced of 
  his love for Lily that we forget that he could have remained bigoted 
  despite this. 


I  have a problem with the Snape in love with Lily scenario being enough to convince some people of its truthfullness... reminds me too much of the Draco/Hermione pairing in fanfics. I am an author of one, but the reason I wrote the fanfic was that I am a 100% sure it is a pairing that will never happen in J.K. Rowling's mind. I feel like that about Snape/Lily, good fanfic material, but acceptable as possible canon? Hmmm

Oh, and what does Lollipops stand for again? All the files that are supposed to be up in the yahoogroups database explaining this are not up anymore. 

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From Ahketsi at aol.com  Mon Apr  8 03:45:17 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 23:45:17 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Quidditch, Ginny's good qualities and more (inc. ship...
Message-ID: <17d.65e62e3.29e26c4d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37560

"Oh dear.  I know Hermione is very impressive and that lots of 
academically inclined people identify greatly with her, but I have 
always thought that Rowling is trying to point out that intellect 
and talent can only take you so far. I'm beginning to hope that JKR 
will have Hemione fall on her face in a big way, to reinforce that 
point.  There's an unhealthy level (IMO) of Hermione-worship going 
on here; it's just not good for her.  You don't want her to develop 
humongous bis-head syndrome, do you <vbg>?"   -Jo Serenadust

Oh, I have to comment on this. I know that Rowling has done a good job of 
showing why Hermione's dedication to work has not only helped her, but also 
hindered her because sometimes she goes overboard in her studies. At the 
beginning Hermione was very proud of herself and felt superior to others who 
didn't work as hard as she did, but she was a child and she has matured 
greatly throughout the first 4 novels. 

Hermione will always be Hermione, she worries a little too much and works 
herself a little too hard, but that's just who she is. I have an enormous 
amount of admiration for her character. She is extremely kind-hearted and 
intelligent, and she not just book smart or anything. 

Hermione has very high morals and cares for her friends deeply. She is 
definitely the kind of patient, hard-working, passionate, and sweet person 
who will be respected by most people who get to know her. In the last book 
particularly she has been courageous and wise. I don't see how anyone cannot 
love her.

Also, Hermione isn't really a big target for Snape, he just is angry with her 
when she helps Neville, or when she proves to be the exception to the rule 
when it comes to knowledge among the students, she is the most learned of 
just about any witch or wizard in her grade. It's hard for anyone not to 
volunteer informatin when they know the answers, why shouldn't she get some 
praise for her hard work? She was annoying when she was younger, but I think 
she's gotten a lot less so. 

I really love how strong Hermione is and how intelligent she has gotten. She 
doesn't always follow the crowd, so other people think she's conceited. She's 
really just confident in her morals, I love how she always makes herself do 
the right thing. 

I'm sure she feels like she's better than others sometimes, when she has to 
todefend her actions, but a lot of that is because her combination of growing 
up in a muggle family and being so well learned in wizardry give her a much 
more enlightened perspective than most of her peers have. 

Well, there's my two cents on Hermione. 

-Jacey




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Apr  8 05:43:51 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 05:43:51 -0000
Subject: Slavery and House Elves
Message-ID: <a8ramn+renp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37561

Very recently (that means a couple of thousand posts ago!), there was 
discussion of whether the House Elves are slaves. Some said they 
are not slaves because they do not want to be free. Here is something 
relevant from the latest ish of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN:

http://www.sciam.com/2002/0402issue/0402bales.html
The Social Psychology of Modern Slavery by Kevin Bales 
Sci Am April 2002

"Debt bondage is common there [a place in Uttar Pradesh], too. When I 
met Baldev in 1997, he was plowing. His master called him "my 
halvaha," meaning "my bonded plowman." Two years later I met Baldev 
again and learned that because of a windfall from a relative, he had 
freed himself from debt. But he had not freed himself from bondage. 
He told me:

'After my wife received this money, we paid off our debt and were 
free to do whatever we wanted. But I was worried all the time--what 
if one of the children got sick? What if our crop failed? What if the 
government wanted some money? Since we no longer belonged to the 
landlord, we didn't get food every day as before. Finally, I went to 
the landlord and asked him to take me back. I didn't have to borrow 
any money, but he agreed to let me be his halvaha again. Now I don't 
worry so much; I know what to do.'

Lacking any preparation for freedom, Baldev reenrolled in slavery. 
Without financial or emotional support, his accidental emancipation 
didn't last. Although he may not bequeath any debt to his children, 
his family is visibly worse off than unbonded villagers in the same 
region."

The article goes on with much other interesting information, 
including why a person would put themselves back in slavery (without 
even getting paid for selling themselves!) and how to rehabilitate 
freed slaves so that they can survive in freedom.








From meckelburg at foni.net  Mon Apr  8 05:54:59 2002
From: meckelburg at foni.net (mecki987)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 05:54:59 -0000
Subject: Missing Weasleys // Next year's Gryffindor Quidditch team
In-Reply-To: <a8lt1f+i147@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8rbbj+p1n9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37562

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> 
wrote:
> Eclipse wrote:
> 
> > I have no problem with there being a missing Weasley child to 
> > explain the gap. However what was the child that young doing home 
> > alone? (If that's where the Dark Mark was.) Where was Molly and 
the 
> > other younger children? 
> 
> If Charlie was born in 1967, he might have started at Hogwarts in 
> 1978, when Percy was maybe 2 years old and the twins were being 
born. 
> So we could have Bill and Charlie away at Hogwarts, Molly busy 
giving 
> birth, 'David' + optional other missing sibling sent to visit one 
pair 
> of grandparents while the other grandmum is keeping Percy out of 
> trouble at his own home... and it was the grandparents' house, not 
> Arthur's house, that was destroyed with the Dark Mark over it. That 
> would account for half the missing grandparents of our Weasleys.
> 


You're probably right. Molly (and Arthur with her) are at St.Mungo's 
when *David* dies. But I have a theory that Percy is with his brother 
at his Grandparents house. He is a 3-year old, and told not to go 
outside. My 3-year old teaches me every day that the safest way to get 
him to do something is to say *don't*. So *Edward*-Percy cries "Leet's 
play hide and seek" and runs outside. When David and the Grandparents 
get outside, they meet the Deatheater without being prepared. Percy, 
safe in his hiding-place, has to witness their deaths. And for him, it 
is *all his fault*. His parents will tell him it is not (what can a 
3-year old do) but for Percy, breaking the rule caused it all. 
Everyone stops talking about David, to make it easier for Percy. Every 
time someone calls him Ed or Eddy he starts crying, maybe because 
David had had a similar nickname for him. So Molly and Arthur decide 
to call Edward by his second name. 

And, to put a little more grief upon Mollies head :), the story goes 
on.
After F&G, little Harry Weasly is born. About 18 months later, Molly 
is pregnant again, when she hears the story of Harry Potter and 
Voldemort.The excitement (and perhaps the grief, that if this had 
happened earlier, David would still be alive) caused the babies to 
come earlier than awaited. Twin girls are born (it is not unusual, 
once twins are in the family)- Ingrid and Jennifer. Only Jenny 
survives. When F&G see the baby they are told *this is Jenny*, but 
they say Ginny- and it stuck.

This would explain, how overprotective Molly is with Ginny. 
One of my twin-daughters died shortly after her birth and it took a 
long time and hard work, not to see her grave every time her 
twin-sister had as much as a cold or a nose-bleed. I'm still 
overprotective, but I know why, so I try to work against it. For Molly 
it would be the second child-death, and that is absolutely impossible 
to cope with. The constant rule-breaking of F&G would scare Molly too, 
she'd be afraid they get themselves into real trouble sooner or 
later.

   

So, here is the Weasly-family:
Arthur
Bill
Charlie
David
Fred & George
Edward - Percy
Ingrid and Jennifer *Ginny*

Perhaps, if the two child-deaths had not happened, there would have 
been Kathleen and Luis until we finally get to Molly <vbg>.

Again, this is a theory, pure speculation, far-fetched canon -based 
fun.....

But it fits, doesn't it?

Mecki 




From meckelburg at foni.net  Mon Apr  8 06:00:32 2002
From: meckelburg at foni.net (mecki987)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 06:00:32 -0000
Subject: missing Weasly cont.
Message-ID: <a8rbm0+p5j8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37563

I forgot to add something:
HP caused Voldemorts downfall. Molly and Arthur knew he'd be famous, 
so they decided to call their son by his second name *Ronald* to awoid 
confusion.

Mecki




From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Apr  8 06:59:07 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 02:59:07 EDT
Subject: Hedgehogs/ Snape and Muggles/ Weasley naming schemes
Message-ID: <57.983ed27.29e299bb@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37564

Tabouli:
> Debbie:
> > I'm a bit suspicious of the twins in general, and think Fred in 
> particular is quite self-centered<
> 
> Ooo!  The twins are Ever So Evil?  Where are the hedgehog hunters?
> 

Here, and ever at the alert!
Let's just say we've got their cards marked. My personal feeling at the 
moment is that the twins are OK, but then I haven't analysed them in the 
detail that some others have. I am aware of aspersions being cast in their 
direction before and have their names filed in the section marked, 'Ones to 
Watch'. Meanwhile, I'd better go back and look up the discussions about the 
twins.

BTW, returning to that potentially nefarious amphibian, Trevor, has anyone 
ever suggested that his constant efforts to escape may be inspired by a 
desperate need to get back to a hen's egg he's trying to hatch?

...................
Back to Snape (wither all roads seem to lead, round here!)

Alina:
>Isn't it possible that another reason that Snape hates Hermione is 
>that she is a "Mudblood". Whilst we do not know why Snape became a DE 
>or why he chose to recant, there must surely have been some aspect of 
>the "ideology" that appealed to him. Of course, it might have been 
>pure hatred of the marauders, or dissatisfaction with Dumbledore, but 
>Voldemort's message might also have driven the young Dark Arts 
>fanatic.

>Snape might have seen the error of his ways, but that does not 
>automatically mean he sees Muggle-born wizards as the equals of 
>Purebloods.

This may be true, but if it is, he keeps his prejudice well-hidden. We know 
he doesn't like fools, or those he perceives as such, we know he doesn't 
trust werewolves, we know he carries grudges against individuals. But we have 
*never* heard him utter a word that suggests he despises someone because of 
his/her birth. At the risk of sounding like Hermione, I don't think 
Dumbledore would employ someone who was tarred with the muggle-hating brush. 
Many other faults he overlooks, but that fundamental ideological difference 
would be too much IMHO.

................
On the subject of Weasley naming schemes (very interesting post Mecki, and so 
brave of you to talk like that, my heart goes out to you), just out of 
interest, it was only some time after the birth of my third child that 
someone asked if it was intentional that they had names beginning  A, E, and 
I (in that order). In fact it was co-incidence, we'd never noticed. Now I 
have to confess that it was in the back of my mind when number 4 came along 
and <cringe> she's an 'O', but only because we also really like the name (if 
she'd been a boy, she'd have been a 'C'). No, before you ask, the set is 
*not* going to be completed.

Eloise
(who attended a Eucharist yesterday presided over by a priest wearing 
chasuble and stole adorned with phoenixes, something I've never seen before.)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  8 07:29:52 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (Rohit Puskoor)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 00:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Grey Lady/Riddle's mom/new acronym challenge
In-Reply-To: <1018238408.8120.615.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020408072952.1320.qmail@web13401.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37565

If I'm not mistaken, the Grey Lady is the Ravenclaw
ghost, correct?  Could she perhaps be the spirit of
Rowena Ravenclaw.  I really have to agree with those
who've said that it doesn't make sense for the heir of
Salazar Slytherin (Mrs. Riddle or whatever her name
was) to be a Ravenclaw ghost--to be sorted into that
house is one thing, because as Rowling so often
reminds us, it's not our abilities but our choices
that define us.  But it seems odd that she'd become
something that seems to be an integral part of each
house (could you see the Bloody Baron as the
Hufflepuff ghost?).  Plus, I can't see the Ravenclaw
ghost having much interaction with Riddle, especially
since he seems to be very proud of his Slytherin
heritage and house.  I actually am really curious
about how he found out he was the last remaining
descendant of Salazar Slytherin if he was in an
orphanage if his mom didn't tell him; I can't imagine
Hogwarts professors were especially anxious for the
heir of Slytherin to embrace his heritage.

I too am really looking forward to finding out more
about Riddle's mother.  I want to find out what she
was like--maybe the fact that she fell in love with a
Muggle indicates that she did not embrace her
slytherin heritage and would not be happy to see what
her son has become (it's ironic that he hates
Mudblood's so much when he's half a Mudblood--i
think).  It does sound like true love, since it sounds
like she envisioned a happy future for them and was
really dejected when he rejected her (after all, if
she didn't love him, why reveal her magical status if
all she was after was... well, y'know :) ).  And why
give Tom his father's name?  You know, I don't know if
anyone here has seen the pilot episode for Bewitched,
but I imagine that magical people telling their
spouses or significant others about their magical
talents is much like it is shown in that show :P (I
can just see poor ol' Mr. Finnigan down at the pub
after his nasty shock :D)

Oh, and Christine, the whole bit about Ron as the
shoulder-devil and Hermione as the shoulder-angel was
not mine, but it's funny right?  And don't get me
wrong, may not be the biggest fan of the Harry/Ginny
pairing at the moment, but like I said, there's
another 2000 pages to go, and the way Rowling writes,
that's a lot of room for her to develop it
satisfactorily.  And I am definitely a fan of young
Ginny Weasley--I think she, much like Neville, are
going to prove to be a lot more formidable than
they've been presented to be so far.  I dunno, It'd be
nice for someone other than the trio to save the day
for once...

Tabouli, Grey Wolf, there's an acronym challenge for
ya'... Ginny and Neville proving themselves to be more
formidable wizards than anyone's given 'em credit for
so far.

=====
"That is one of my more brilliant ideas, and between you and me, that is saying something."

-Professor Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, J.K. Rowling

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr  8 09:04:01 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 09:04:01 -0000
Subject: Snape v Hermione the Mudblood - and a little Lollipops
In-Reply-To: <00a101c1de9e$662b5740$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <a8rme1+50uh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37566

Alina asked:
> Oh, and what does Lollipops stand for again? All the files that are 
supposed to be up in the yahoogroups database explaining this are not 
up anymore. 
> 
> Alina of Distant Place

LOLLIPOPS: "Love of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus" 
And, to my notice, the database is still there. 
Check "Database"-->"Inish Alley"

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  8 11:03:16 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 11:03:16 -0000
Subject: Crouch Sr
Message-ID: <a8rtdl+rcm1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37567

Eileen bought up in a very interesting post the subject of Crouch Sr. 
Alarmed by the mysterious, (despite the grey hair) lack of sexy 
Crouch acronyms she proceeded to investigate the case thoroughly. 
Observing that as 
>he was extremely attentive of his looks, he was a very popular 
politician
and all in all 
>quite a striking personality
he must indeed be dead sexy and demanded an acronym. However 
somewhere along the way to this conclusion she apparently got rather 
lost in tangles of Crouch related subjects of all sorts leading to 
quite a few thought?provoking points 

                                                                      
                             *    *    *


I think that the confusing thing about Crouch's character is that 
there are so many different accounts of it. Of course JKR loves red?
herrings and is continually setting her readers up for Great Plot--
Twists and Dumbfounding Apocalypses. Yet the Crouch case is much more 
complex than, say, the Black one. With Sirius there's no problem?
you're told he's mad and dangerous in the beginning, he than proceeds 
to progressively accumulate more badness, till finally it turns out 
that?hey! Guess what! He's really OK after all!


Now that's easy. That's simple. That's something one can handle. You 
are told what to believe and you promptly gulp it all down like a 
good little reader.


But with Barty Sr?well, who * is* telling the truth? Furthermore do 
any of the people expressing opinions on Crouch throughout the book 
really have the authority to do so? Does anyone actually * know* him 
at all? The very fact that nobody has any idea what his life is 
really like is what he's all about after all.


Let's consider our sources a moment --and for one character who's not 
even major there's a great many of them. First of all we've got Barty 
Crouch himself?obviously our most trustworthy origin of information, 
though the scenes in which he appears offer a wide range of 
behaviours and mental states. As for the rest, well. . . there's 
Percy's raptures over his boss-- Sirius's account?and finally Barty 
Jr's narrative. The last two stories seem to tie well enough 
together, but, hmmm, I think Percy would beg to differ, don't 
you?. . . It's really rather bewildering. After all none of these 
characters are completely objective judges, are they? And really, why 
accept their opinions as if they we're written in stone? 


Eileen comments that Percy is not Crouch in miniature. Good point. 
Yet we are rather encouraged to think so, wouldn't you say? One of 
Harry's first observations on meeting Crouch is that the reasons for 
Percy's idolising for him are obvious.


Eileen continues:
>First of all, all evidence does point to Percy's assertion that 
>Crouch is indeed a brilliant man. But he has more than that. A 
>certain style, a calmness in the most bizarre situations (the only 
>time he loses his temper is right at the very end of the trial 
>scene), a methodical way of going about things. This is a man that 
>people pay attention to, as they did when Voldemort was alive. 
>Meanwhile, Percy, no matter how brainy, comes across to everyone as 
>an annoying puppy, bounding about and showing off. 


Exactly. Of course the two of them do have quite a few traits in 
common: The in?your?face rule?loving thing obviously, a certain 
pompousness of manner, a feeling of self?importance, ambition. . . In 
fact I think that part of the reason Percy gets so irritating (in an 
endearing fashion of course:--)) in GoF is that he's trying to 
imitate his hero but isn't really pulling it off so well. This is 
rather sneaky of JKR, don't you think? Not only is she trying to 
twist our perception of Crouch's character, but also attempting to 
get us to believe that Percy could ever really "pull a Crouch"! 
<snorts loudly and indignantly> As if!


Percy certainly does beat the drum for Crouch of course, but does 
that really mean that he actually knows anything about his boss as a 
person? Note that he's stubbornly slow on the uptake when it is 
evident something is seriously wrong. It would seem to me that Percy 
is just too caught up in, initially his own excitement over a new job 
that he's clearly * really* into and later his stress and work 
overload, to see beyond the end of his own nose. Much as I love Percy 
I have to admit that in GoF he is rather wrapped up in himself to 
take serious notice of what's going on around him. 
Crouch's "overenthusiastic" comment is indicative of this IMO. Percy 
is trying so hard to please him he can't even tell when he is 
genuinely doing so and when he's just, well, making a nuisance of 
himself.


And then there's Sirius. Sirius is the one character who actually 
does attest that he "knew" Crouch. Yet what he actually seems to mean 
is that he had one brush with the man in his life which resulted in 
quite calamitous and utterly unjust results for himself. Now 
obviously Sirius carries a bit of a grudge. And who can blame him? 
Perfectly understandable. It does however place is assessments of 
Crouch Sr in a rather dubious light, no?


And in fact I think that the whole of "Padfoot Returns" raises quite 
a few questions as far as Crouch is concerned. Clearly of course he 
did have some rather, hmmm, extremist ideas of how Voldemort was best 
to be fought. However. . . 


Well, take the granting of new powers to the Aurors. Powers to kill. 
Ermm, really, how can I put this delicately? Errmm, well, hmmm, 
but. . . * look who's talking*?! And after all there was a war going 
on. To say the truth I had been rather taking it for granted that 
there must have been killings and was quite surprised that the fact 
was referred to with such a scandalised manner. It was the rest of 
the Unforgivable Curses that shocked me.


And then there's everyone's reaction to Crouch's handling of his 
son's crimes: Hermione whispers "Did Crouch try and get his son off?"-
-What, was he supposed to do that? Evidently as the truth apparently 
appalls Harry: "He gave his own son to the Dementors?" he asked 
quietly.


Of course everyone's welcome to have their own opinion on the matter, 
but I can't agree with the general sentiments of our protagonists 
here. The fact that Barty Jr just happened to have a father in high 
places should not affect the enforcement of justice. Of course in 
this case it in fact * did* and the outcome was not very advantageous 
for poor Barty. That is of course equally unacceptable. However 
that's another matter altogether and one that rather deals with the 
oh?so?very?easily corruptible law system the wizarding society has 
working (or not working) here. But it still doesn't alter the fact 
that Crouch using his power and positioning to get his son off would 
* not* have been right.


Eileen wrote:
>Crouch did not sacrifice his son to his career ambition. This seems 
>to be a red herring in the plot.


Indeed. As a matter of fact I don't even think that later on when his 
career tumbled down around him he really gave two figs about it. He 
had much greater troubles to worry about. This is replayed 
effectively in the Dark Mark scene with Winky's dismissal. It was 
not, as we were all led to believe, the taint on his reputation that 
bothered him. Winky is just offered up in an attempt to keep much, 
hmmm, larger skeletons in the closet and the reader is being led off 
course.


Which appears to be a general motif throughout the book. JKR is 
continually spooning us indications of Crouch Sr's Big Baddiness. 
Even his son's crimes are blamed on him. And Eileen mentions
>Ludo's significant offhand introduction of Crouch, "Talk of the 
Devil"
and the
>significance of Barty Jr. being fair-haired, while his father was 
dark-haired.

Yup. Yup,yup,yup. All red herrings. All of `em. Set us off the scent.


The whole thing is of course marvellously contrived. From their 
initial introduction in the chapter named after them Bagman and 
Crouch keep us right at the end of our seats pin?pointing one and 
then the other as a possible villain. As it in fact turns out neither 
one is the Big Bad Wolf in this case, though Crouch's explanation is 
of course infinitely more interesting than Ludo's.


Both of them are, it would seem, grey characters. (though the jury is 
still out on Bagman's general innocence) I like that. It makes a bit 
of a break in the Good Guys/Bad Guys game and hopefully indicates 
more such characters to come as Harry moves further afield and out of 
his close circle of friends. Now all we need to find out is that 
Crouch Jr was a bad egg of Ravenclaw (he's not really ambitious, just 
extremely vindictive and of course devilishly clever) and there you 
have it! A precedent is set!


Some more things on Crouch Sr:


Eileen wrote:


>While under the Imperius curse, Crouch sometimes acts like an 
>automaton. However, he breaks through it with his own personality at 
>the end of the Goblet of Fire scene. "I've left young Weatherby in 
>charge ... very enthusiastic ... a little over-enthusiastic, if 
>truth be told ..." which goes against Ron's assertion that Crouch 
>has no sense of humour, and makes one wonder if Crouch would have 
>been an entirely bad influence on Percy. There's a lot of lessons 
>that Percy has to learn, but this "over-enthusiasm" as Crouch puts 
>it, is getting in the way of learning any of them. He wouldn't 
>ever .drop it on Gred and Forge's suggestion, but could contact with 
>Crouch have cured him of it? 


Hmmm, I don't know about that. To be honest I never really liked the 
way Crouch treated Percy, at least if his behaviour at the Quidditch 
World Cup is any indication. I mean, he hasn't even gone to the 
trouble of learning his own personal assistant's real name for crying 
out loud! Remember Sirius's comment about looking at how a man treats 
his subordinates to understand what he's really like? Crouch's whole 
attitude towards Percy in the scene borders on the dismissive. After 
all he's in Percy's environment, surrounded by Percy's friends and 
family, he could give him the time of day or at least drink the lousy 
tea! Percy's obviously bending over backwards (or hunching over 
frontwards as the case may be) to please him and he can't even manage 
anything more than "mild surprise" at seeing him. And I bet Crouch 
never even read the cauldron report . . . <sigh>


However, yeah, maybe Percy could learn a few necessary things from 
Crouch if the latter bothered himself with him. But then again he 
could also have learned a great deal not?so?very--good things as well.


>Barty Jr. is an ungrateful b-eeeeeeeeeep. Don't care how unloving he 
>thought his father was. Being under Imperius curse was a heap nicer 
>than Azkaban, especially since he was guilty.


Agreed. IMO Barty Jr' s attitude towards his father speaks far more 
of his own complexes than his father's failure. No doubt Crouch Sr 
did indeed leave much to be wished for as a father. But I don't 
believe Barty's assertions that his Dad never really loved him. Quite 
to the contrary he seems genuinely proud when he talks of his son's 
academic success. He just probably was not in the habit of showing it 
much. Sad, but it hardly let's Barty off the hook.


Actually that high?wrought "I have no son!" begs, at least to my 
mind, for comparison with "The fiddler on the roof". There we have 
another father who dismisses a child over his beliefs with the exact 
same words, yet can there be any doubt of the effort it is costing 
Tevye? Hmmm, well obviously the similarities stop there, but, errr, I 
just thought I'd mention it.


>J.K. Rowling said that it's the unhappy people who come back as 
ghosts. I can't think of >a person in all the books who dies more 
unhappily than Crouch Sr. 

Oooh excellent! I like it! Yes, and of course it would be a perfect 
pretext to bring up the whole ghost thing as we have been promised!


Charis Julia, who really thinks Crouch Sr was hard, harsh and cruel, 
but can't help pitying and even rather liking him. He's definitely 
better than Bagman, who as we all know is in fact the one who is the 
real D.E.V.I.L.! <g>

P.S: C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D.! Lol! T.A.G.S. does it again!





From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  8 12:29:15 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 12:29:15 -0000
Subject: The Grey Lady/Riddle's mom/new acronym challenge
In-Reply-To: <20020408072952.1320.qmail@web13401.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a8s2er+ubj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37568

> 
(it's ironic that he hates
> Mudblood's so much when he's half a Mudblood--i
> think).  

Yes. The parallel to Hitler is inescapable, I think. Psychologically, 
though it makes sense. If you're interested, Alice Miller wrote an 
essay examining Hitler's life as the outcome of severe childhood 
abuse by his (allegedly) half-Jewish father.

Naama




From ebondragoon at mindspring.com  Mon Apr  8 09:13:38 2002
From: ebondragoon at mindspring.com (Christine Peterson)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 02:13:38 -0700
Subject: Minor Characters to the Rescue! (Re: [HPforGrownups] new acronym 
 challenge)
Message-ID: <3CB15F42.B30EE56F@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37569

Rohit wrote:
> And I am definitely a fan of young Ginny Weasley--I think she, much like
> Neville, are going to prove to be a lot more formidable than they've been
> presented to be so far. I dunno, It'd be nice for someone other than the trio
> to save the day for once...

Oh, I'd _so_ like to see that! It'd really be a vindication for both of them to
be able to come out and shine on their own without any help from the Trio! Heck,
maybe they could do it by saving the Trio's necks! LOL! ^_^

> Tabouli, Grey Wolf, there's an acronym challenge for ya'... Ginny and Neville
> proving themselves to be more formidable wizards than anyone's given 'em
> credit for so far.

*jumps up and waves* I second that challenge! ^_^

Christine
-- 
Proud member of G.I.A.N.T.C.U.S.H.I.O.N. (Ginny Isn't A Naive, Trivial Child
Unworthy of Securing Harry's Interest: Object Now!)

One of the lessons of the Potter books is that, unless you have the brains of
the Sorting Hat, it is unwise to slot people into rigid categories as a
result of your first impression.
- Pippin




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  8 14:22:20 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 14:22:20 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Graduation 
In-Reply-To: <004501c1dea6$b48ea830$6401a8c0@FAMILY>
Message-ID: <a8s92s+8fjt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37570

"Vicky D" <vdegroote at w...> wrote:

> Has anyone ever noticed or have ideas on what happens when a student
> "graduates" from Hogwarts?  There doesn't seem to be any mention of 
a
> ceremony.  Maybe it takes place prior to the End of Year Feast?  
Noticed in
> the flick-which-must-not-be-mentioned that the only itme the 
students were
> wearing the pointy hats was at last feast-could this indicate
> formal/official function/ceremony.  We see things through Harry's 
eyes, so
> perhaps since graduation hasn't been of significance to him, we 
don't hear
> about it.  Or maybe it's just attended by graduates.  I've always 
been a bit
> curious about this.  It seems it would be a bit sad after 7 years 
to just be
> done, nothing special happens, feast and go home like any other 
year. :(

My main pet peeve in fanfic is any mention of the word "graduate" - 
the first mention of that word usually sends me off in search of 
another. Just for the record, in British English, the 
word "gradutate" refers EXCLUSIVELY to tertiary education. Fanfic 
authors please take note.

As the Hogwarts system is based on the English school system (the 
Scottish system is very slightly different) the whole notion 
of "graduation" from secondary education is entirely foreign. Inter 
alia, the Twins and Percy get their exam results in the middle of the 
summer (just like English pupils) and thus it would be premature to 
have any kind of celebration before then. Also, JKR has explained 
that Flint, the Slytherin Quidditch captain, did his final year 
twice - he would not have known about this for certain until he 
received his results in August - so any kind of end-of-school 
celebration would have been out of place for him. Incidentally, this 
wouldn't be because he had a bad year per se, but because he thought 
he'd deserved better results in his NEWTs.

Much as this may seem strange to most non-British ears, English kids 
just "leave" school, and in most cases there's absolutely no fanfare 
about it. Some schools (but more usually the pupils themselves, 
independently) might have an "end of exams" party, and I'd expect 
Hogwarts to be no different. But there is no big celebration, no 
speeches, no silly costumes, etc. 

Finishing one's compulsory education is perhaps the biggest anti-
climax in any English person's life. I expect the end of Harry's 
seventh year will be just a little more exciting, but that's only 
because it'll be the end of the story (and presumably, of 
Voldemort...). If they have any celebrations, it won't be because 
they're leaving Hogwarts, but because the war's over.






From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr  8 15:32:45 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 15:32:45 -0000
Subject: new acronym challenge
In-Reply-To: <20020408072952.1320.qmail@web13401.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a8sd6t+b7eq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37571

Rohit Puskoor wrote:
> Tabouli, Grey Wolf, there's an acronym challenge for
> ya'... Ginny and Neville proving themselves to be more
> formidable wizards than anyone's given 'em credit for
> so far.

Christine Peterson said:
> *jumps up and waves* I second that challenge! ^_^
> 
> Christine

The Grey Shadow stops his tireless persecution of Tabouli's good ship, 
a wolfish grin spreading in his muzzle and a strange sparkle on his 
eyes. A challenge! Wolves love to play, and he's not the one to back 
down such a graceful offer. Seconded, too! 

Which means: I'm giving it a try. How does this look:
G.A.N.G.S. (Ginny And Neville: Great Sorcerers)
or better yet
G.A.N.G. W.A.R.S. (Ginny And Neville, Great Wizards, Always Remain 
Secretive)
or best:
G.A.N.G. W.A.R. U.P.H.E.A.V.A.L.S. (Ginny And Neville, Great Wizards, 
Always Remain Undercover Protecting Harry's Exploits, Although Visibly 
Are Largely Squibs).

Of course, as soon as Tobouli straightens out her problems with the 
I-net conection, she's going to use MAGI to develop a much better 
acronym, so all this work was probably worthless anyway, but it was 
fun:

Tabouli wrote:
> Alas, Captain Tabouli is still confined to her cabin, exchanging increasingly angry semaphore with her ISP.  However, if the paws of the wolf are behind her incarceration, he has made one fatal error.  The MAGI (Magnificent Acronym Generating Instrument) is out of his reach, locked in the chamber with her.<snip>
> 
> Tabouli (stealthily making a call to an Irish wolfhound breeder)

Three things, Tabouli. (1) I hope your ISP problems are solved soon, 
else the Grey Wolf will soon dominate the Acronyms Services of this web 
(and a great loss that would be, since my acronyms tend to be quite a 
bit more forced -probably due to the fact that I'm working in an alien 
language)

(2) Ever watched Evangelion? If not, you just made an unintentional but 
very appropiate parallelism between that series super-computer and your 
own MAGI. I loved it, even if it you didn't notice, though.

(3) Do you relly think a half-wolf such as an Irish wolfhound is going 
to catch up with me? I thought you held more faith in my capabilities. 
I'll just have to demonstrate further, I suppose.

With a last howl, the great wolf stood on his feet once more and, with 
no apparent effort, threw himself once again into the chase, forever 
shadowing the ship, waiting for that fatal flaw that would allow him to 
jump aboard and discover it's inner secrets...

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From weaver at schnoogle.com  Mon Apr  8 13:11:17 2002
From: weaver at schnoogle.com (... Weaver ...)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 06:11:17 -0700
Subject: Why do Muggles get a capital letter?
Message-ID: <200204081311.g38DBGH19499@mail7.bigmailbox.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37572

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020408/4a143dfa/attachment.ksh>

From fordpr1020 at aol.com  Mon Apr  8 17:12:13 2002
From: fordpr1020 at aol.com (thefortressiserlohn)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:12:13 -0000
Subject: The Grey Lady/Riddle's mom/new acronym challenge
In-Reply-To: <20020408072952.1320.qmail@web13401.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a8sj1d+2d0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37573


> Tabouli, Grey Wolf, there's an acronym challenge for
> ya'... Ginny and Neville proving themselves to be more
> formidable wizards than anyone's given 'em credit for
> so far.

*Delurk*

U.G.A.N.D.A - Underappreciated Ginny And Neville Develop Amazingly

*Relurk*

--jc




From trog at wincom.net  Mon Apr  8 17:22:30 2002
From: trog at wincom.net (talondg)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:22:30 -0000
Subject: Crouch Sr
In-Reply-To: <a8rtdl+rcm1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8sjkm+tea7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37574

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" <pollux46 at h...> wrote:
> Eileen continues:
>> Meanwhile, Percy, no matter how brainy, comes across to everyone 
>> as an annoying puppy, bounding about and showing off. 

Well (as is often easy to forget) he's only 18...

What Percy hasn't learned yet is how to pull off Command. Those are 
earned skills, not learned skills. Give him time.

> And then there's everyone's reaction to Crouch's handling of his 
> son's crimes: Hermione whispers "Did Crouch try and get his son 
> off?"- -What, was he supposed to do that? Evidently as the truth 
> apparently  appalls Harry: "He gave his own son to the Dementors?" 
> he asked quietly.

Well, it IS shocking, in that quietly horrible kind of way. It's 
shocking that the wizarding society placed Crouch in a position where 
he was inprisoning his son, and it's a little intimidating that he'd 
have the steel in him to see the job done.

And yet... in the end, his guilt wins out over his steel, doesn't it? 
He gives in to his wife, frees his son, and is killed for it.

He'd've been much better off seeing the job through and leaving him 
in Azkaban.
 
> Of course everyone's welcome to have their own opinion on the 
> matter,  but I can't agree with the general sentiments of our 
> protagonists here.

And I agree with you - and I suspect that the protagonists would too. 
Especially now that everyone knows that Jr really WAS a DE.

Where I think you might get discussion over Crouch's character would 
be over *motivation*, not action.

Did Crouch have a choice? Could he have excused himself from the 
tribunal?

If he could have, what was his motivation to sticking on?

If he wanted to send a message to the Death Eaters ("Nobody is exempt 
from justice, not even my son") well then, good on him. He's setting 
the example at great personal cost.

But if he just wants to look "tough on crime" for political ends, and 
is sitting on the tribunal because it makes him look really, really 
really tough... well... that is more than a little on the callous 
side, isn't it? Not the sort of guy you want in charge, is it?

Consider the Gulf War: was it a) a Great Nation coming to the rescue 
of a smaller one beleagured by the forces of barbarism? b) an attempt 
to maintain control of a large oil patch? or c) an attempt to raise 
the popularity of a political leader (cf "Wag the Dog")?

I'm not looking for an answer. :) (and in reality, probably all 3 
were factors to one amount or another) but some motives are more 
noble than others.
> Remember Sirius's comment about looking at how a man treats 
> his subordinates to understand what he's really like? Crouch's 
> whole attitude towards Percy in the scene borders on the 
> dismissive.

Well... I dunno about that....

If you are in a job that requires you, on occasion, to be a Right 
Bastard to your subordinates, then it behooves you to maintain a 
certain distance. Dicipline does not long survive familiarity.

That doesn't mean you get to *abuse* your subordinates, but the fact 
that Crouch isn't all buddy-buddy with Percy isn't necessarily a bad 
thing. In fact, I think it's an indicator of professionalism.

And I *totally* sympathise with Crouch on the name thing. :) Thank 
deity for name tags!

Something else to consider is that we don't really know the character 
of Crouch's office (although we're given plenty of examples of 
Ministry-As-Buraucracy-Run-Amok) If there is a lot of high-intensity 
office politics going on, Crouch showing anyone too much favour may 
have other repercussions. I'm reminded of an office I worked in where 
a low-level supervisor turned into a female Stalin, ruling the office 
with an iron fist, because the fact she was sleeping with the boss 
gave her more power than she would have otherwise. :(

>> Barty Jr. is an ungrateful b-eeeeeeeeeep. Don't care how unloving 
>> he thought his father was. Being under Imperius curse was a heap 
>> nicer than Azkaban, especially since he was guilty.

Add "manipulative SOB" to the list. What was that shrieking scene at 
the sentencing, if not an attempt to emotionally stab his father, and 
cast doubt upon his motivations?

That scene sets the tone for our suspicions of Crouch-as-politically-
motivated. Harry (and us) come away from it convinced that Crouch 
sent his own, innocent son to Azakaban. And then later we find out 
that not only was Jr guilty, but Sr *knew* he was guilty. He 
wasn't "turning his own son over to the Dementors", he was 
instead "putting Ol' Yeller down".

> Actually that high?wrought "I have no son!" begs, at least to my 
> mind, for comparison with "The fiddler on the roof". 

To my discredit, I'm not familliar with the story.

But to me, the "I have no son!" is Sr's attempt to try and come to 
terms with what he has had to do. It's a healing thing, a 
rationalization thing. As black a snake as Sr knows Jr to be, it 
still cannot be easy to send him off like that.

It seems that maybe the only true judge of Sr's character is Percy. ;)

DG




From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  8 17:24:06 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:24:06 -0000
Subject: Mugglemagi?  (was Re: Why do Muggles get a capital letter?)
In-Reply-To: <200204081311.g38DBGH19499@mail7.bigmailbox.com>
Message-ID: <a8sjnm+12ik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37575

Weaver wrote:
> I'm 
> thinking of ancient wizarding families considering Muggles as
barely 
human, 
> as beneath their dignity, something less than a dog or a cat (given 
that 
> Animagi can *become* cats and dogs).
> 
> (Digression: on that same track, *can* an Animagi transform into a 
Muggle? 
>  Maybe Snapeykins is an Animagi and his form is that of an old 
crotchety Muggle
>  man...  ::giggling:: Maybe Draco Malfoy can, and that explains his 
bitterness 
> towards the less magically-gifted...)

*stares*  Wait!  I'm...!

I'm confused.  

What does being able to turn into a cat or dog, and potential 
prejudice against Muggles have to do with....

Why would....

Okay, hang on.  The point of being an Animagus *seems* to be to 
transform into something completely Other than oneself in *form*.  
Person to bug; person to dog; person to stag; etc.  Person to Muggle 
would be...pointless.  

But more than that, I also think it's a moot question.  The animagus 
transformation has nothing to do with latent talent, except as 
pertains physical capabilities, right?  I mean, the only real 
difference between wizard and Muggle (other than capitalization, ta 
Weaver, :-) is magical talent/lack thereof.  Which wouldn't translate 
via physical transformation, would it?  I draw this conclusion from 
the fact that when a wizard transforms into an unmagical dog, said 
wizard is still able, via magic, to transform back into his wizard 
self; i.e., magical ability is in tact, despite physical form.  So 
transforming into a Muggle...no such thing, since that would mean 
transforming magical talent, rather than form.

Er.  Right?  Maybe?

But then, the Animagus gig is a really big deal ~ very hard and 
apparently dangerous.  There has been speculation on list that Mrs. 
Norris is a wizard who Animagus'ed and then couldn't transform back 
for whatever reason.  Suppose it is a distinct possibility to 
inadvertently Animagus away your magical talent.  In which case it 
would be possible to transform into a Muggle, i.e. rid yourself of 
magical talent.  But why would a wizard want to do that?  And if they 
did, how would they transform back (a la your Snape & Draco examples 
above)?  It sounds like the sort of thing 
that would be used as a punishment rather than by choice.

Mahoney
befuddled




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr  8 18:03:30 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:03:30 -0000
Subject: Why do Muggles get a capital letter?
In-Reply-To: <200204081311.g38DBGH19499@mail7.bigmailbox.com>
Message-ID: <a8sm1i+ck8n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37576

Weaver wrote:  
> Okay, here we go:
> 
> Why are there 'Muggles' and 'wizards'?  Why not 'muggles' and wizards, or
>  Muggles and 'Wizards'?  Surely it makes more sense to be consistent?

>  Having offered up my oddball theories, I wait,
>  confident that the massed intelligence of HP4GU will offer me solutions.  
> ::grins:: I love this group!
> 
> --Weaver

I'm not studying English language (in fact, English is just my second 
language), so please excuse me if I say something completelly untrue 
about the English language in this post: sometimes I confuse my own 
language's rules with the English rules.

Anyway, getting to the point, I think Muggles deserves a capital letter 
in the same way "French" or "German" or "Japanese:" it's a way of 
indicating that they're from a different culture/country/whatever. 
Wizard is not (normally) capitalized because it refers to oneself, like 
"human" or "person". I'm not 100% sure, but isn't "Warlock" 
capitalized? That would indicate that Warlock is the formal name of 
wizards is, as a counter part of "Muggle".

Can't go any deeper than that but nonetheless,

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Apr  8 18:05:54 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:05:54 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #2 - Snape!
Message-ID: <a8sm62+p11k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37577

Dr. Philip Nel writes:

To a reader intrigued by Snape, Rowling advises, "keep an eye 
on him' (Barnes & Noble chat).  So, who is Snape working for, 
really?  Is he on Dumbledore's side?  Voldemort's?  Is he only 
looking out for himself?  Put another way, is Snape's behavior 
motivated by a schoolboy grudge or by allegiance to Voldemort?  
Is Snape petty or evil?  What will his role be in the final three 
novels?
**********

COMMENTARY AND FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS:

This group hardly needs to be told to keep an eye on Snape. 
Rowling's most enigmatic character has been the subject of 
endless debate and speculation here, not to mention the 
Snapefans spin-off list where crushy posts, fanfic and  
Rickmania reign. 

Who is Snape working for? If Dumbledore, then why is Snape 
still so nasty? Does he really want the Dark Arts job, and if so, 
why wouldn't Dumbledore give it to him? If Snape has been  
working for Voldemort all along, then why did he save Harry's 
life? If Snape is only looking out for himself, then why should he 
expose himself to danger by confronting Quirrell or taking up the 
mysterious errand at the end of GoF? 

Many list members consider a school boy grudge too petty a 
motive for Snape's behavior. Rowling has left much of Snape's 
canvas blank, and readers have obligingly filled in the details: 
could there have been a failed love affair? Does Snape come 
from an old wizarding family like the Malfoys, or does his elegant 
diction disguise humbler origins? What about his hooked nose 
and  sallow complexion? Could he be Welsh, Jewish, connected 
to the similarly described Viktor Krum, or perhaps even to the 
hated but unseen Vampires? 

Does Snape act out of a  petty devotion to rules and procedures, 
or is that  just an excuse to make people  miserable? How does 
his attitude toward rules and discipline compare to Percy's?

 At the moment, Snape's future is as mysterious as his past. The 
last we see of him, Harry notes his expression is "difficult to 
read" though he looks as "sour and unpleasant" as ever. Harry 
has never had trouble interpreting Snape's expression before: is 
this because Snape has changed, or because Harry has? 

Rowling has assured her audience that Snape is "tough" which 
implies that he is in for it.  Will suffering transform him? Will 
Snape ever truly be accepted by Sirius and Lupin? By Harry? 
Would Snape betray them if he could?

I don't think Snape is evil. I think he has a vicious disposition, 
and relishes the opportunity to let loose on whomever he thinks 
deserves it, but unlike Voldemort he no longer seeks to punish 
the entire world for his misery, nor does he manipulate innocent 
people for his own ends, as the Crouches and Lucius Malfoy do. 
I think the clues to his true character reside in his relationship to 
Hagrid and to Filch. As Sirius says, you can tell what someone 
really is by the way he treats his inferiors. Hagrid never 
considers Snape a threat to Harry, and Hagrid, for all his 
gullibility with strangers, seems to be pretty perceptive about 
people he knows. 

As for Snape's future role, I think he will serve as a conduit for 
information from the Dark Side, whether as a spy or in some 
other way, and also as a foil for Lupin and Sirius. There will be 
situations where Harry isn't sure which of them to trust.  Snape is 
also the vehicle for Rowling's ideas about the possibilities and 
limits of redemption, which should become clearer as we learn 
more about Snape's life.

PAST DISCUSSIONS:

32080 (Marianne: Snape doesn't really want the Dark Arts job)

34410 (Barb: Is Snape really still loyal to Voldemort)

34690 (Cindy: Why Snape joined the Death Eaters and why he 
quit)

34762 (Marina: Why Snape willingly risks his life)

33258 (Tabouli: Snape/Lily theories)

25429 (Marcus: Why Snape is not a vampire)

35299 (Pippin: Canon evidence connecting Snape and 
vampires)

30732 (Gwendolyn Grace: All things Snape)

28833 (Amanda: Snape/Lily, Snape's mission in GoF)

36295 (Porphyria: Snape's career as a spy)

33370 (Judy Serenity: Why do readers love Snape)





From absinthe at mad.scientist.com  Mon Apr  8 18:14:09 2002
From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (milztoday)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:14:09 -0000
Subject: Percy -- Weasley/Mitford Comparisons -- Rule-Breaking -- Cho (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <029001c1dbfc$7fb08180$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a8smlh+ia70@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37578

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
 
> WEASLEY/MITFORD COMPARISONS
> 
> 
> 
> Milz, I loved your post comparing the two families.  I knew nothing 
about the Mitfords.  Can you share more about what it is about Jessica 
Mitford that JKR so admires?  I've never investigated & now I'm 
curious.
> 

I'm still on my library's the waiting list for the latest Mitford 
sisters biography _The Sisters: the saga of the Mitford family_ by 
Mary Lovell. However, I have my suspicions about what in Jessica 
Mitford Rowling admires so much: independent, free-thinking, etc. 
Other than that, I haven't found specifics other than J. Mitford being 
described as Rowling's "idol". A quickie web search about the 
Rowling-Mitford connection alludes to this in THIS group's FAQ (lol) 
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/faq_rowling.html

Milz






From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  8 17:56:43 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (Rohit Puskoor)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 10:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily's parents/Gryffindor heir/Ginny's real name/snape&mudbloods
In-Reply-To: <1018269891.2522.53565.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020408175643.53629.qmail@web13407.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37579

Anyone else besides me curious as to what happened to
Lily's parents.  Especially considering how young Lily
and James had Harry, her parents should have been
alive... they couldn't have been more than 50-60, so
at least ONE of them should have still been alive,
right?  And I highly doubt, judging from the
information we've been given so far, that they would
have approved of Petunia's treatment of their own
grandson.  No, I have a feeling that, had Harry been
raised by them, it would have been the kind of
childhood Dumbledore envisioned for Harry--one where
he wouldn't be suffocated and made into a pompous
big-head by his fame, yet one where he'd have
knowledge of his place in the wizarding world and
would also be loved.  Again, much like the Grangers,
they seem like the ideal parents of a Muggle-born (I'm
not a parent myself, but I imagine it must take a lot
of guts to send your kid off to some place that you
know little about; and a lot of strength of character
to allow your child to have a place in a world that
you know you will never get to share with him/her). 
Just wondering why THEY are not taking care of Harry,
and wondering if whatever happened to them maybe added
fuel to Petunia's resentment of the wizarding world
(though it seems she was quite jealous of Lily to
begin with--maybe her parents were a little too doting
on Lily's talent and neglected Petunia?  I find it
really ironic that Lily is a flower which symbolizes
innocence, and petunias symbolize resentment :P)

I really hope Harry is not the Gryffindor heir,and in
fact, I think that is a gigantic red herring--a little
cliched to have the Gryffindor heir to defeat the
Slytherin heir, and it goes totally against Rowling's
whole notion that people aren't born to great
destinies, their choices lead them in that direction. 
It's a possibility, but at the moment, I don't think
Dumbledore or Harry are Gryffindor's heir... truth be
told, i always imagined Dumbledore would be a good
Hufflepuff for some reason, though Hermione all but
stated he was in Gryffindor (though she didn't say he
was definitely in Gryffindor, just that she heard he
was in Gryffindor).  Ever notice, btw, how the sounds
of each house's name reflects their personality. 
Gryffindor sounds very noble and brave; Slytherin
sounds very much like a snake, cunning ("slither);
Ravenclaw--the claw reminds me of someone grasping for
knowledge; and Hufflepuff--"huff," "puff" someone
working really, REALLY hard.  

Oh, and btw, quick note, and someone feel free to
contradict me if I'm wrong, but we've had no
indication from Snape himself that he looks down on
Mudbloods, we just assume it because of his house. 
But I doubt that all Slytherins think like the
Malfoys; there have to be SOME good Slytherins.  After
all, I think I'm ambitious but I don't think that
automatically makes me "evil."  Though if I was being
sorted, I'd probably be sorted into Gryffindor or
Ravenclaw.  But anyway, I like Snape... he's kind of
an anti-hero.  He's good when it counts, but he's
still a mean dude you root against at times.  I think
there's an interesting backstory on him, and I
definitely want to find out more about his history. 
Another acronym challenge, Tabouli and Grey Wolf?

Rohit (columbiatexan)

P.S.  Ginny's full name COULD be Imogene.  Lord knows
if I was a girl, and I can't admit to knowing how
y'all's minds work, even after 20 years, but I don't
think I'd want to go around with a name like that...
when I was little and my sister was born, my parents
were going to name her something awful and I
threatened to call her something diffferent.  I could
totally see Gred and Forge doing something similar :P

=====
"That is one of my more brilliant ideas, and between you and me, that is saying something."

-Professor Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, J.K. Rowling

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr  8 18:19:30 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:19:30 -0000
Subject: Slavery and House Elves
In-Reply-To: <a8ramn+renp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8smvi+u9a4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37580

catlady_de_los_angeles wrote:
> Very recently (that means a couple of thousand posts ago!), there was 
> discussion of whether the House Elves are slaves. Some said they 
> are not slaves because they do not want to be free. Here is something 
> relevant from the latest ish of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN:
>
<snip example of a slave that didn't want to be free>
> 
> The article goes on with much other interesting information, 
> including why a person would put themselves back in slavery (without 
> even getting paid for selling themselves!) and how to rehabilitate 
> freed slaves so that they can survive in freedom.

That was one of the points I tried to get through to my opposition 
during that debate. However, when we got to the point all we were 
saying was "I understand what you're saying but do not agree with it", 
we decided to let it lie, since there was no way to "win" the argument, 
and was sort of starting to look like a child's game of "did too" vs. 
"did not".

In the time that has passed, however, I have thought of a new example 
to explain my point. So, one last time (and hoping I'm not starting a 
flame war with this), let me put an example of why liberating the house 
elves isn't such a good idea:

There is, in human society in RL, a form of slavery that is officially 
approved: tobacco. Some 50% of the "developed world" smokes and (at 
least in my country), it's getting worse (meaning more people are 
smoking, and starting at a younger age). Most smokers I know realize 
that smoking is a drug which they're enslaved to, but nonetheless do 
not want to stop smoking. The people who have stopped normally need 
psicological help to do so. Of course, this is because of the 
pharmacological propierties of tobacco, what's called it's 
addictiveness. I'm not suggesting that being slaves is a drug for house 
elves, but there are some similarities, if you think about it.

What's worse, however, is the fact that in both cases, most of the 
people involved do not want to stop duing it, and if someone suggested, 
for example, "liberating smokers from the vile clutches of 
cigarrettes", that person would be very critiziced (or worse).

I know that the parallelism is not perfect, but it does, IMO, get the 
point across.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From plumeski at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  8 19:01:50 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:01:50 -0000
Subject: Why do Muggles get a capital letter?
In-Reply-To: <200204081311.g38DBGH19499@mail7.bigmailbox.com>
Message-ID: <a8speu+3515@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37581

"... Weaver ..." <weaver at s...> wrote:

> Why are there 'Muggles' and 'wizards'?  Why not 'muggles' and 
wizards, or
>  Muggles and 'Wizards'?  Surely it makes more sense to be 
consistent?

<snip>

I don't think it has anything to do with English usage. What I 
suspect it has a lot to do with is intellectual property law (stand 
up Ms Stouffer) - note that almost all JKR-invented terminology or 
words with a specific meaning within the Potterverse are capitalised: 
Transfigure, Apparate, Muggle, etc, etc. 

It is much easier to establish special meaning (and thus trademarks) 
for capitalised words (the traditional use of capital initials 
relates to proper nouns) - using non-capitals means that the author 
is allowing non-specialist use. 

Note also that "wizard", "witch", or indeed "magic", don't get 
capital initials as these are words used in their standard English 
meaning. In this way, JKR is underlining the fact that capitalised 
words have a special meaning - e.g. Transfiguration isn't used in its 
Christian (Catholic) sense, but something slightly different, 
although related.






From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Mon Apr  8 19:28:17 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:28:17 -0000
Subject: Slavery and House Elves
In-Reply-To: <a8smvi+u9a4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8sr0h+t94c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37582

Greetings!

In response to an announcement about a very intriguing article, Grey
Wolf drew a rather unconventional parallel between house-elf slavery
and tobacco addiction.

That's a different way to look at it, GW, and I'll want to think about
that and the Scientific American article a bit before responding....

Which I will do on 20 May, because (trumpet fanfare!) that's the date
we have scheduled for talking about house elves in their two
discussion questions from Dr. Nel!

So as with the discussion of rules that was sparked by Percy's
questions, I shan't ask people *not* to talk about this now, if it
suits them. But I thought y'all might want to know that there will be
a house-elf discussion in a few weeks, as well, so you may want to
hold your comments until then.

Or if people really want to talk about it "Officially" sooner, perhaps
I can sweet-talk one of the other discussion leaders to switch to a
sooner week? If so, please inform me off-list. Get 10% of the list and
we'll deal.

Gwen (who finds these cycles of topics just weird in their timing, and
is off to read about Snape)




From sopranoham at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  8 19:16:18 2002
From: sopranoham at yahoo.com (Soprano Ham)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 12:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron / Dumbledore / untraditional family unit /Snape
In-Reply-To: <a8qcoi+mr1g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020408191618.86292.qmail@web13003.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37583


Good day all, I am new  to posting.  I have been re-reading the hp series these past 2 weeks and have been giving much thought to the Snape issue... 

rob_p114 wrote: I have to say, when it comes to Snape, I personally am of the school of thought that he is very much a (albeit very dark) reformed character. I agree with the notion that he is breeding weak death eaters for Voldemort, and think it is ingenius, whoever, future thought of it 


I agree that this is brilliant. My own theory has been that Snape was so lenient towards Malfoy and co. because he was either a. terrified of Lucius because he was aware that he was still on the side of Lord V. or b. ingratiating himself to the son so that the father would still believe he was secretly still a part of the dark side.  Now that I've heard the 'breeding weak DE's' theory, I might be re-thinking my position.

Cheers.
Sop.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  8 19:24:46 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:24:46 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Graduation
In-Reply-To: <a8s92s+8fjt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8sqpu+24ov@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37584


> 
> Much as this may seem strange to most non-British ears, English kids 
> just "leave" school, and in most cases there's absolutely no fanfare 
> about it. Some schools (but more usually the pupils themselves, 
> independently) might have an "end of exams" party, and I'd expect 
> Hogwarts to be no different. But there is no big celebration, no 
> speeches, no silly costumes, etc. 
> 
> Finishing one's compulsory education is perhaps the biggest anti-
> climax in any English person's life. I expect the end of Harry's 
> seventh year will be just a little more exciting, but that's only 
> because it'll be the end of the story (and presumably, of 
> Voldemort...). If they have any celebrations, it won't be because 
> they're leaving Hogwarts, but because the war's over.

Quite interesting... but Hogwarts might have a tradition that's 
different. Such as a special ceremony including only those recieving 
their NEWT-results, their families and teachers. This would include a 
few speeches, perhaps music and public recieving of their certificate 
and possible scholarships. Formal dress-robes. And certainly a little 
bit of magic. After all, there isn't any university. Hogwarts is the 
highest education in Wizard World.

And... I think that the Weasley twins will organise a party if the 
school doesn't! I guess they'd manage to gain Dumbledore's approval 
for it... Say they'll give teachers some feedback in form of a song 
and a gift. Such custom does exist in Finland at least.

-- Finwitch





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Mon Apr  8 19:57:45 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:57:45 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Graduation
In-Reply-To: <a8sqpu+24ov@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8ssnp+8f0j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37585

:
> 
> > GulPlum wrote:

> > Much as this may seem strange to most non-British ears, English 
kids 
> > just "leave" school, and in most cases there's absolutely no 
fanfare 
> > about it. Some schools (but more usually the pupils themselves, 
> > independently) might have an "end of exams" party, and I'd expect 
> > Hogwarts to be no different. But there is no big celebration, no 
> > speeches, no silly costumes, etc. 
> > 
> > Finishing one's compulsory education is perhaps the biggest anti-
> > climax in any English person's life. I expect the end of Harry's 
> > seventh year will be just a little more exciting, but that's only 
> > because it'll be the end of the story (and presumably, of 
> > Voldemort...). If they have any celebrations, it won't be because 
> > they're leaving Hogwarts, but because the war's over.

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote

> Quite interesting... but Hogwarts might have a tradition that's 
> different. Such as a special ceremony including only those 
recieving 
> their NEWT-results, their families and teachers. This would include 
a 
> few speeches, perhaps music and public recieving of their 
certificate 
> and possible scholarships. Formal dress-robes. And certainly a 
little 
> bit of magic. After all, there isn't any university. Hogwarts is 
the 
> highest education in Wizard World.
> 
> And... I think that the Weasley twins will organise a party if the 
> school doesn't! I guess they'd manage to gain Dumbledore's approval 
> for it... Say they'll give teachers some feedback in form of a song 
> and a gift. Such custom does exist in Finland at least.

The problem with this kind of party is that if it follows the English 
exam system, they will not get their results until the middle of the 
holidays, weeks after they have left Hogwarts. There does seem to be 
a bit of confusion in Canon on this though. I think from memory that 
Percy gets his OWL results in the middle of the holidays, but the 
twins get theirs at the end of the school term. We are not told when 
Percy gets his NEWTS.

I am sure you're right, and that the twins will have a big party at 
the end of term - and when they get their results. At my school we 
had a big party when we finished our lessons (i.e. before our 
A'Levels even started); alot more celebrating when the exams had 
finished, and still more celebrating weeks later when we got our 
results. It's not that I think that Hogwarts students won't 
celebrate, I'm sure that they will. It's just the idea of a 
formal "Graduation-style ceremony" that doesn't seem right.

I am also not exactly sure what the students would be graduates of. 
We have still not been told what exactly "qualifies" a wizard, as a 
wizard. Thus someone could finish at Hogwarts with only a few OWLs - 
would they then be a "graduate" wizard? Given that students leave 
English schools with Public Exams both at the age of 16 and 18, when 
would it be appropriate to have such a ceremony? Would you be a 
graduate if you got 1 NEWT or 3 NEWTS?

I think that you can expect a big party (assuming there are enough of 
them left to party), and maybe even a special meal just for the 
leavers, but nothing more.

Ali

who apologises for not taking the meaning of "wench" too literally in 
a previous post - and still feels very embarassed about it!







From plumeski at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  8 20:05:45 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:05:45 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Graduation
In-Reply-To: <a8sqpu+24ov@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8st6p+2094@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37586

"finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:

<snip>

> Quite interesting... but Hogwarts might have a tradition that's 
> different. Such as a special ceremony including only those 
recieving 
> their NEWT-results, their families and teachers. This would include 
a 
> few speeches, perhaps music and public recieving of their 
certificate 
> and possible scholarships. Formal dress-robes. And certainly a 
little 
> bit of magic. After all, there isn't any university. Hogwarts is 
the 
> highest education in Wizard World.

Quite. However, everything we know about final exams indicates that 
the results aren't announced immediately, so they won't know who's 
got what, and there certainly wouldn't be any certificate 
distribution. *All* seventh-years will be taking NEWTs (that's the 
whole point). As I said previously, the most which might be organised 
is an "end of exams" gig - in real life schools, it's not unheard of 
for the school to arrange something (though extremely rare), but far 
more likely would be for the pupils to do something themselves (which 
is very frequent - this is also usually the first time most 
otherwise "normal" English kids experience excessive drinking and the 
concommitant hangover). This might include some input from the school 
authorities (and perhaps popular teachers might be invited), but the 
event would be mega-informal.  

What I would expect to happen is that each House's seventh-years 
would make arrangements with the House master to get food and goodies 
from the school kitchens and take over the common room for the night. 
Alternatively, they just take over Hogsmeade. ;-)

I do appreciate that for Americans and most Europeans, for whom it's 
immediately obvious who's passed what exams, all of this appears 
somewhat strange, but it's the way things are. As JKR's own education 
was in the English system, it would be most likely that as with most 
things, she used that as a model for Hogwarts (and everything appears 
to point that way).

I do have a small nit-pick which is that there can't be many people 
taking OWLs and NEWTs in the UK every year (unlike real-world GCSEs 
and A Levels) and thus I can't see why results can't be announced 
immediately. After all, it's unlikely that there's an external 
examining body, and it seems as though the Hogwarts teachers 
themselves set and mark the exams. JKR has seems to have become just 
a little *too* bogged down in the real-world system and has failed to 
appreciate that things at Hogwarts must be just a little different.







From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  8 21:21:28 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:21:28 -0000
Subject: Loving multiple characters exclusionary? (was: Re: Hermione and Snape)
In-Reply-To: <002301c1de46$c25c7240$aa21b0d8@kerelsen>
Message-ID: <a8t1ko+harp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37587

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Bernadette M. Crumb" <kerelsen at q...> 
wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...>
> 
> 
> > Naama, wondering whether you can only love Hagrid *or* Snape,
> but not
> > both
> 
> Well, I adore both characters.  I find both of them have a lot of
> potential for character analysis and speculation because they are
> both "mysterious."
> 

The more I mull this over, the more I feel like Hagrid and Snape are 
two sides of the same coin.  
-Both seem to suffer from a degree of arrested emotional 
development.  
-Both have physical descriptions that can arguably be described as 
somewhat repellant.
-Both (as I see it) seem to suffer from depression as well.  
-Both at least in part derive their sense of worth from Dumbledore's 
regard for them.
-Both rely on Dumbledore for their jobs, of course, but more so than 
most other teachers (except Lupin) because it's highly unlikely that 
anyone else would have trusted/hired them.  
-Each has either done or been accused of doing something illegal, and 
is mistrusted instinctively by certain people (Hagrid as a half-
giant, Snape as a former DE).  
-Both are highly loyal to, and in fact willing to risk their lives 
for Dumbledore and the cause, both without question.  
-Both are sent out on dangerous missions at the end of GoF (granted, 
along with others).  
-Both are lonely/alone/loners (at least up until Mme Maxime came 
along).
-Both have a (somewhat exaggerated) passion for their chosen field.
-Both are less than ideally effective at teaching their subjects 
nonetheless.
-Both knew all the major players in Harry's history.  
-Both have secrets to impart to him - Hagrid mostly in PS/SS, Snape 
mostly to come.

-Hagrid is generally kind with some frighteningly violent instincts 
for protecting those he loves (Think Karkaroff and the tree).  
-Snape is generally nasty with some startlingly noble instincts that 
cause him to protect those he despises.  

-Snape is highly intelligent, but with a tendency toward jumping to 
the wrong conclusion.  
-Hagrid is simple-minded, but with a tendency to give wise advice.  

-Snape is often the object of ridicule amongst the trio. 
-Hagrid is often the object of ridicule amongst their rivals.  

-Hagrid stayed good despite being accused of being bad.
-Snape became good despite having *been* bad.

So maybe it's no wonder people who like Snape have a tendency to 
dislike Hagrid and vice-versa.  Their world views are almost 
diametrically opposed, despite having a world of things in common.  
Their situations, surroundings, loyalties, etc. are very similar at 
this point in their lives, but the paths they've taken and the 
choices they've made are vastly different.  It's an interesting 
window onto human nature.  I am intrigued by both, admire both in 
their ways and love to read both, and a part of me (although not the 
same part of me in each case) would like to "help" both of them, but 
when it comes down to choosing who you'd want to hang around with if 
they were real people - I still like them both, but I imagine Snape 
wouldn't want me around anyway, and Hagrid's more suited to my way of 
thinking, so it's far easier.  His reactions are comprehensible to 
me, while Snape's seem strange.  For others, Hagrid seems childish 
and irrational and they'd rather be around a Snape.  

I just thought I'd toss that out, if it doesn't make sense to anyone 
outside of my own head, I apologize.

kimberly
who likes the term "two sides of the same coin" and wonders which of 
them would be heads and which tails.  





From fordpr1020 at aol.com  Mon Apr  8 23:02:13 2002
From: fordpr1020 at aol.com (thefortressiserlohn)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:02:13 -0000
Subject: Discussion Question #2 - Snape! (LATE)
In-Reply-To: <a8sm62+p11k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8t7hl+2m7u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37588

*Delurk*

> Who is Snape working for? If Dumbledore, then why is Snape 
> still so nasty? Does he really want the Dark Arts job, and if so, 
> why wouldn't Dumbledore give it to him? 

I think Snape really is working for Dumbledore - it's generally the 
safest place.  By now Snape really has nowhere else to go - he's a 
known spy (providing that the results of all the trials were made 
public) and can't go back to the Death Eaters.  Like Pettigrew the 
safest place for him is where he is right now.

Re: being nasty, I think that's just part of Snape's personality.  
I'm VERY impatient with people who tend to irritate me, and a group 
of 40 annoying, undisciplined brats who can't even do the wizarding 
equivelant of middle school chemistry (or high school home ec - same 
effects and principles) would drive me nuts too.  After a while you 
just sort of become extremely cynical.  Of course, this goes back to 
Snape at Hogwarts - We don't know how good his grades were, so it's 
hard to judge if he thought he was smart then as well.

As far as the DADA job, it wouldn't look very good for a former DE to 
be teaching DADA - he may know all the tricks, but how to go against 
them?  It may be hard for him to teach the subject and not get 
into....touchy subject matter...  Of course, I think Snape DOESN"T 
want the DADA job so it's a moot point...

> If Snape has been  
> working for Voldemort all along, then why did he save Harry's 
> life? 

I'm happy with Dumbledore's explanation about the life debt.

>If Snape is only looking out for himself, then why should he 
> expose himself to danger by confronting Quirrell or taking up the 
> mysterious errand at the end of GoF? 

Until I know what the mysterious errand is I won't comment.  As far 
as confronting Quirrell, it woudln't exactly be SAFE for Snape if 
Voldemort were to come back, now would it?  Voldemort said in GoF 
(forgot the chapter) that one has left forever and will be killed.  
It's rather obvious that this is Snape (if you take loyal = Crouch 
Jr. and runaway = Karkaroff).

> could there have been a failed love affair? 

I wouldn't have wanted to go out with someone like Snape.  I'm 
willing to bet he's the type to want nothing more at the end of the 
day than privacy and quiet.

> Does Snape come 
> from an old wizarding family like the Malfoys, or does his elegant 
> diction disguise humbler origins? 

Good question =)  I'd say that Snape would have to be pretty old 
family-wise to join the inner circle of Death Eaters.  If membership 
for them was like for the SS, Snape would have to trace his lineage 
back at least 5 generations.

> Does Snape act out of a  petty devotion to rules and procedures, 
> or is that  just an excuse to make people  miserable? How does 
> his attitude toward rules and discipline compare to Percy's?
 
Snape will quite clearly break rules to advance himself and to 
accomplish a goal (I can see him actually slipping Veritaserum into 
Harry's drink, and his threat to Neville's toad was very real.)  
However, by forcing the rules to be followed he's not only keeping 
his students in line while working on a dangerous subject, but is 
also the proverbial lord over the student serfs.

> Harry 
> has never had trouble interpreting Snape's expression before: is 
> this because Snape has changed, or because Harry has? 
 
I think everyone has changed because of the events in GoF.  Snape, by 
this point, may still hate Harry like nothing else, but has to 
respect him because of his fight against Voldemort, as well as put 
aside petty personal issues because of the graveness of the situation 
at hand.

> Will 
> Snape ever truly be accepted by Sirius and Lupin? By Harry? 
> Would Snape betray them if he could?

Snape will never be truly accepted by Sirius and Lupin, and I doubt 
that he will ever truly accept them.  Their grudges have gone back 
far too long to be erased now, but I also don't think that he would 
betray them either - he's between the effective rock and hard place, 
as he has to either work with those he hates to stay alive, or let 
Voldemort have easy pickings.

Harry, on the other hand, is one I'm not going to touch with a ten 
foot pole.  The situation there is FAR too complex to try and briefly 
sum up.

I will conclude by adding this much: I have a much longer list of 
people who I think are going to die than most people do.  Snape has 
managed to stay out of the "definate" section, but is safely rooted 
in the "wouldn't be surprised" area as well.

*back to lurking*

--jc




From fordpr1020 at aol.com  Mon Apr  8 23:10:36 2002
From: fordpr1020 at aol.com (thefortressiserlohn)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:10:36 -0000
Subject: 2 more quick Snape bits...
Message-ID: <a8t81c+2s5b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37589

Sorry about the extra post, just realized this after I hit send...

1)Did Barty Crouch, Jr. know that Snape was permanently off of V's 
team?  If so, is he the one informing V about who the trio are, or is 
he staying quiet about it to fit in with the role.  Also, if he 
DIDN'T know, why didn't he try to recruit Snape?

2)New Snape Acronym: S.I.N.E.C.U.R.V.E.: Snape Is Not Evil - Creative 
Unknowns Regulate Vicious Exterior.

--jc




From theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  8 19:49:34 2002
From: theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com (Theresa ryan)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:49:34 +0000
Subject: What's your favourite part?
Message-ID: <F21579XytNG6TgpCpt000006ec2@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37590

Hello all,
   I'm afraid I must ask your for what must be the most clichd question on 
this newsgroup; what's your favourite part in all of the books? I don't want 
to see anybody saying 'I love them all, I can't pick just one!' Well, now 
you have to!
  For me, it was the part in book 3 where Harry goes to the pub (Three 
Broomsticks I think is the name) and hears the teachers talk about Black 
being associated with his father-it was so poignant, Harry hasn't heard much 
about his parents up till now and it's all coming to air, he even finds out 
about the motorbike. Anyone else?
  P.S- I just thought of this- Fluffy, Norbert, Fang? Anyone think that 
'Fang' is a wee bit OOC for Hagrid? Doesn't he usually favour more...umm, 
cutesy names?

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.





From poco214 at comcast.net  Mon Apr  8 22:46:13 2002
From: poco214 at comcast.net (poco214)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:46:13 -0400
Subject: The Grey Lady/Marriage/Connection to Dumbledore?
Message-ID: <00de01c1df4f$30092280$e8c22744@jdover01.nj.comcast.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37591

Being new to the list, I'm not sure if this has been proposed before, but here goes:

Finwitch writes:
>Well - I believe Albus Dumbledore *was* married, but his wife's been 
>long dead. (Supposedly she used to knit wollen, grey socks for him 
>Muggle Way - Love by every loop. AD would miss that, I'm sure). 

Could the Grey Lady be Dumbledore's "long dead" wife? 
(grey socks? ^_^)

Petra writes:
>The Grey Lady's costume is definitely not of the time period befitting a woman >who could have given birth to Tom Riddle, Jr. near the beginning of the 
>last century.  And no, being killed while attending a costume ball 
>doesn't do it for me.  :) Her numerous appearances in the film only 
>support the probability that this is a character who may have a more 
>pivotal role in the books to come than the one she's played so far

She might not have been old enough to be Tom's mother but her costume may fit just the right time period.  If SS/PS takes place in 1991 and Dumbledore is 150 years old, he was born circa 1841.  He may have married as early as age 20, making the wedding sometime in 1860.  However, I don't know much about period dress of the 1800's.  If the costume suggests an earlier time period, could she be his mother?

I'm not sure about my theory because Dumbledore has very limited contact with the Grey Lady, making the possibility slim that they were closely involved.  Just decided to throw the idea out there. ^_^  

ameko




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  8 23:33:34 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:33:34 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's your favourite part?
Message-ID: <F307gNznWsKkMML418w0000b7b8@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37592

>From: "Theresa ryan" <theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com>
>    I'm afraid I must ask your for what must be the most clichd question 
>on
>this newsgroup; what's your favourite part in all of the books? I don't 
>want
>to see anybody saying 'I love them all, I can't pick just one!' Well, now
>you have to!

Having just re-read it, I think it'd have to be the part in GoF where Ron 
and Harry make up. Hermione loses her cool completely. She stomps her foot, 
calls them both stupid, and hugs them mercilessly. We need to see GoF as a 
movie if only for that scene!

>   P.S- I just thought of this- Fluffy, Norbert, Fang? Anyone think that
>'Fang' is a wee bit OOC for Hagrid? Doesn't he usually favour more...umm,
>cutesy names?

In a way, it's nice. It shows that Hagrid has a sense of humor, even about 
his own somewhat looked-down-upon passion for dangerous pets. Fang, the most 
violent sounding pet he's had is in fact a huge pushover. It's irony, it is!

J

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  8 23:51:37 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:51:37 -0000
Subject: What's your favourite part?
In-Reply-To: <F21579XytNG6TgpCpt000006ec2@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a8tae9+7gn2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37593

"Theresa ryan" <theresa_ryan85 at h...> wrote:
> Hello all,
>    I'm afraid I must ask your for what must be the most clich?d 
question on 
> this newsgroup; what's your favourite part in all of the books? 

If I only had to pick one, it'd be the Hut on the Rock, and Harry's 
introduction to his past and future. That scene works on so many 
levels and has just the right mixture of poignancy, pathos and humour.

I'm probably a bit biased - I'm one of those few whose first 
introduction to the Potterverse was the celluloid thingy of which we 
do not speak on this list, and that scene was my favourite there as 
well. Strangely enough, it's one of the most changed scenes, and made 
perfectly cinematic, just as the original book scene was perfectly 
literary.

>   P.S- I just thought of this- Fluffy, Norbert, Fang? Anyone think 
that 
> 'Fang' is a wee bit OOC for Hagrid? Doesn't he usually favour 
more...umm, 
> cutesy names?

I've never thought about that, but now you mention it, it is just a 
little incongruous...





From Whirdy at aol.com  Mon Apr  8 23:55:14 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:55:14 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's your favourite part of Fang?
Message-ID: <153.bf07628.29e387e2@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37594

In a message dated 4/8/02 7:21:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com writes:


>  P.S- I just thought of this- Fluffy, Norbert, Fang? Anyone think that 
> 'Fang' is a wee bit OOC for Hagrid? Doesn't he usually favour more...umm, 
> cutesy names?
> 

Perhaps the poor dog only has the one!

whirdy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  9 00:25:02 2002
From: witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com (Wanda Mallett)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's your favourite part?
In-Reply-To: <a8tae9+7gn2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020409002502.36190.qmail@web13703.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37595



 "Theresa ryan" <theresa_ryan85 at h...> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I'm afraid I must ask your for what must be the most clich?d 
question on this newsgroup; what's your favourite part in all of the books? 

After reading all four books, of all the characters it is Hedwig! She has a way of getting her point across to Harry! Especially when he doesn't have a snack for her after one of her deliverys for Harry! When she wacks him on the head with her wing! I would have to re-read that part over a few times and all of us giggled over that! Plus when Moody turned Malfoy into a ferret! William would repeat that over and over again to his brother! I think he would have liked to do that to his brother James! Sibling teasing! Actually, all 4 books have so many great parts! Just reading the posts jogs the memory! So, between animals and main characters and even those awesome Weasley Twins, you have to love it all! Well, we do in our house! Great question!

Schnoogles,

Wanda the Witch of Revere, Massachusetts and Her Very Merry Band of Muggles 100%

"When you come to the edge of all the light you know, and
are about to step off into the darkness of the unknown, faith is knowing one of two things
will happen; There will be something solid to stand on, or you will be
taught how to fly."......Unknown.





---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  9 00:56:41 2002
From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:56:41 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Tuition (a little late) and Fang, Fluffy and Norbert
Message-ID: <a8te89+ig1b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37596

 In double checking my SS-there is a line from Dursley when Hagrid 
> came to the shack on the island to get Harry where Vernon yells to 
> Hagrid "I am not paying for some crack pot old fool to teach him 
> magic tricks" (p. 59 US paperback version).  There must be some 
kind 
> of tuition if Vernon was worried about paying for the school.
> 
> There is also a line on page 58 where Hagrid is telling Dursley 
that 
> if Harry wants to go to Hogwarts, no muggle like Dursley will stop 
> him from going.  Since there is a "choice" about going to Hogwarts, 
> perhaps that suggests that some wizards don't go OR go to another 
> school, somewhere.
> 



In the names that Hagrid gives his pets, Fang fits perfectly.  Fluffy 
and Norbert were both dangerous animals and got "cute" names, Fluffy, 
on the other hand, is a big coward, and thus a "dangeous" name.

> Gretchen






From srae1971 at iglou.com  Tue Apr  9 01:09:37 2002
From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:09:37 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's your favourite part?
In-Reply-To: <F21579XytNG6TgpCpt000006ec2@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020408210937.00a18f18@pop.iglou.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37597

At 07:49 PM 4/8/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>   I'm afraid I must ask your for what must be the most clich?d question on 
>this newsgroup; what's your favourite part in all of the books? I don't want 
>to see anybody saying 'I love them all, I can't pick just one!' Well, now 
>you have to!

I'm sure this probably doesn't qualify as a 'scene' but it's a sequence of
events and that is good enough for me. It starts when Hagrid busts into the
Hut on the Rock and ends when Hagrid and Harry finish shopping in Diagon
Alley and Harry is back home again.  The whole thing is wonderful.  Up to
that point we've had hints, tiny glimpses of the wizarding world, but we
don't really know what it's like.  We get to experience it all with Harry,
and I found myself just as amazed at it all as he was.

It's a difficult question because I have lots of different favorites, all
for different reasons, and they are hard to compare to one another.


>  P.S- I just thought of this- Fluffy, Norbert, Fang? Anyone think that 
>'Fang' is a wee bit OOC for Hagrid? Doesn't he usually favour more...umm, 
>cutesy names?

My guess is that Hagrid only gives his pets cutesy names if they are liable
to eat you or otherwise mangle and maim you at any given moment.  If they
are more likely to run whimpering away with their tail between their legs,
then he gives them bloodthirsty names.  I suspect he initially named Aragog
Mr Tinkles and one of the Blast Ended Skrewts Pumpkin. 


Shannon




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Tue Apr  9 01:15:31 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 01:15:31 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Tuition (a little late) 
In-Reply-To: <a8te89+ig1b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8tfbj+r0ou@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37598

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mrflynn6" <mrflynn6 at y...> wrote:
>  In double checking my SS-there is a line from Dursley when Hagrid 
> > came to the shack on the island to get Harry where Vernon yells to 
> > Hagrid "I am not paying for some crack pot old fool to teach him 
> > magic tricks" (p. 59 US paperback version).  There must be some 
> kind 
> > of tuition if Vernon was worried about paying for the school.

I was *going* to reply that this is just an assumption on Vernon's part, why 
would he know how Hogwarts operates.  But then I remembered: He's married to 
an alumna!  So perhaps Vernon knows something we don't, after all.




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Tue Apr  9 01:19:01 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:19:01 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Loving multiple characters exclusionary? Hagrid and Snape
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1018315141.0.96496500@webmail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37599

Naama signed off: 

<<
Naama, wondering whether you can only love Hagrid *or* Snape, but not both
>>

Better late than never (I hope), here's my contribution to this thread.

Kimberly, I loved your reply today. You point out so many parallels and things that Snape and Hagrid have in common which are many of the reasons I like them both. In fact you could argue that degree of 'niceness' and 'intellect vs. emotions' is about all that separates them. Well -- maybe not all. :-) But I definitely see them as both likeable, and I'm going to argue that you can like them for similar reasons. 

Let me start by summing up why I like Snape as a character, and then I'll relate those points to Hagrid. I'll try to be concise about Snape since I've said a lot of stuff before, and given that he's this week's discussion topic, I'll probably say it all again. 

One of the things that really intrigues me in a character (and wins my sympathy) is what kind of problem or struggle they bring to the story. (I go on at great length in post #34740.) I like to see how a character struggles with the problems they've got, or how they resolve the tension they create in the story. I'm more interested in this than in how pleasant their personality is or how much I'd like to be friends with them in real life. I'd rather see a character be guilt-ridden than nice, since guilt is a sign of internal struggle. 

Now, while Snape's motivation is still unclear, it certainly seems like the point of his character is redemption for past crimes, and in his case it is a huge struggle to redeem himself since he has such an irascible personality (and a lot of distrust) working against him. His own sadistic instincts might even be working against him, but on the other hand there's evidence that he suffers from guilt and regret, and that he has some protective instincts mitigating his cruel ones. So he's very much at odds with himself. And we do see him struggle for redemption, often while being misunderstood, when he tries to protect Harry, serve Dumbledore both as a headmaster and a spymaster, and generally carry out his duties. The fact that he often does it badly, the fact that he misjudges at the end of PoA or that he misreads Harry and that he probably goes about things the wrong way sometimes make it more emotionally involving for me, because it's not easy for him and he does still try to!
 do the right thing in his own way. 

OK, so about Hagrid. Hagrid has a set of struggles of his own. He's got lots of little ones, some of them not quite as obvious as Snape's, but they're still intriguing. When Hagrid is just a gentle giant I find him more ho-hum, but when he's got a problem to work out, then I find him endearing.

One of the things Hagrid struggles with is his teaching. (Granted, this is not an issue Snape seems to lose sleep over!) I sympathize with him so deeply because teaching is hard, especially if you want to make all your students happy all the time and still force them to learn things. It's not intuitive for Hagrid at all. His choice of hippogriffs for his first class was a tragic miscalculation, not just because of the Draco factor, but because a dangerous animal is not the best choice for a first class full of active teenagers -- one of them was liable to get injured one way or another. But he wanted to start the class off with something that might fascinate them as much as it fascinates him. One of my favorite Hagrid moments is when he's consoling Ron for Hermione's defense of Crookshanks and he remarks "Ah, well, people can be a bit stupid abou' their pets," just as Buckbeak spits out a pile of bloody ferret bones on his bed. Hagrid knows he loves dangerous animals to a bit !
of a fault, but he can't quite help himself. So he overcompensates in his class by replacing the hippogriffs with the flobberworms, which bore everyone silly, and he still hasn't gotten the knack with the Skrewts. By now my heart is breaking for him. But lest we relegate him to the heap of lame Hogwarts professors, he finally starts getting his act together after the Skeeter nightmare at the end of GoF with the nifflers. Everybody loves nifflers. So he's still trying to be a good teacher, and maybe he's getting better at it after all. 

Another one of my favorite Hagrid issues is how he deals with his alcohol problem. I know I shouldn't think alcoholism is cute and cuddly, but, well, it's only fiction and it is moving in his case. In PS/SS when Hagrid takes Harry to Diagon alley, he makes a point of refusing a drink at the pub since he's been forbidden to drink while on Hogwarts duty. But after his wild ride at Gringotts he just can't take it; he drops Harry off at Ollivander's and shows up a little while later in better...spirits. And when something devastates Hagrid he gives himself over entirely to the comfort of the bottle until he gets a grip on himself. So he has to struggle against the part of his personality that is telling him to drown his troubles; he has to force himself to act against his own instincts. You can also cite his weakness for using magic when he's forbidden and his violence as examples of bad habits in a crisis. One could compare these weaknesses to Snape's habit of falling on his wors!
t qualities of rage and stubbornness when he's in a crisis; we would hope that both characters get a little better at handling themselves as the series progresses.

As Kimberly pointed out, both Hagrid and Snape must deal with mistrust and prejudice. Hagrid can't help being a half-giant (as opposed to Snape is who is responsible for having been a DE), but he suffers from it like Snape (I too see them both as depressive types) and he's not above a little sense of shame, which again he struggles to fend off. And he has to deal with the consequences of his heritage: a broken home (giantesses apparently aren't very maternal) and his violent tendencies, which I assume to be a 'giant' thing. When Hagrid speaks of Dumbledore's support after the Skeeter article, he says of him:

<quote>
"Got me the gamekeeper job...trusts people, he does. Gives 'em second chances ... tha's what sets him apar' from other heads, see. He'll accept anyone at Hogwarts, s'long as they've got the talent. Knows people can turn out okay even if their families weren'...well...all tha' respectable."
</quote>

I believe this applies equally to Snape as it does to Hagrid, and I think it's possible that Hagrid even realizes this. Snape is probably from as disreputable as background as Hagrid is and he's even more in need of a second chance than Hagrid (who is only perceived to be near-criminal). But Hagrid identifies with this position and sees himself, like Snape, as a character who has to rely on Dumbledore to get his life organized again, to recuperate from bad experiences, and to redeem himself to himself, to live a life he's going to be prouder of. And, like Snape, he will, and very courageously. 

Aaah! What's not to love about both of them! I hope I've answered Naama's original query. :-)

~~Porphyria



From plumeski at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  9 01:32:34 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 01:32:34 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Tuition (a little late)
In-Reply-To: <a8tfbj+r0ou@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8tgbi+j91n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37600

"joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:

<snip>

> I was *going* to reply that this is just an assumption on Vernon's 
part, why 
> would he know how Hogwarts operates.  But then I remembered: He's 
married to 
> an alumna!  So perhaps Vernon knows something we don't, after all.

er... he's married to an alumna's sister, who was presumably a child 
herself at the time, and so probably wouldn't know all the ins and 
outs. And if Petunia *did* know, considering she and Vernon don't 
like to talk about magic (or Lily), I'd find it unlikely that they'd 
ever have discussed it.

Furthermore, Vernon's own son is about to go a boarding school 
himself, so Vernon's views are probably coloured by the fact that he 
knows he tuition is payable. 




From landers at email.unc.edu  Tue Apr  9 01:42:45 2002
From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:42:45 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's your favourite part of Fang?
Message-ID: <3CB24715.EE470642@email.unc.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 37601

In a message dated 4/8/02 7:21:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com writes:


>  P.S- I just thought of this- Fluffy, Norbert, Fang? Anyone think that 
> 'Fang' is a wee bit OOC for Hagrid? Doesn't he usually favour more...umm, 
> cutesy names?

Actually, I don't find it incongrous at all.
The names are Ironic to me.
Fluffy; I think of a cute cat; Fluffy is not cute and certainly *is not*
a cat.  Norbert; I think of a harmless animal or a human.  Norbert *9s
not* harmless.  Then there's Fang.  I expect some vicious bloodthirsty
hound.  Fang *is not* vicious.  He just as soon kiss you to death as
anything else.

Betty



From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr  9 01:44:34 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 01:44:34 -0000
Subject: LONG: Re: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #2 - Snape!
In-Reply-To: <a8sm62+p11k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8th22+21n7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37602

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> Dr. Philip Nel writes:
> 
> To a reader intrigued by Snape, Rowling advises, "keep an eye 
> on him' (Barnes & Noble chat).  So, who is Snape working for, 
> really?  Is he on Dumbledore's side?  Voldemort's?  Is he only 
> looking out for himself?  Put another way, is Snape's behavior 
> motivated by a schoolboy grudge or by allegiance to Voldemort?  
> Is Snape petty or evil? 

I think that's a rather limiting way to phrase the question, giving 
us "petty or evil" as the only options.  This list has floated a 
huge number of possible reasons for Snape's behavior: loyalty to 
Dumbledore, life-debt to James, love for Lily, moral opposition to 
Voldemort, guilt over his past actions, and any number of others I'm 
probably forgetting.  

I think Snape is loyal to Dumbledore, not just in the sense of 
admiring him and wanting to earn his trust, but also in the sense of 
believing in Dumbledore's cause.  Snape's day-to-day interaction may 
be governed by vindictiveness and personal grudges, but when it 
comes to fundamental questions of good and evil, I think he's on the 
right side.

> Does Snape act out of a  petty devotion to rules and procedures, 
> or is that  just an excuse to make people  miserable? How does 
> his attitude toward rules and discipline compare to Percy's?

I think Snape's a control-freak.  What's worse, he's a control freak 
whose life, in many important ways, is out of his control.  There 
are a lot of people out there who have the power to destroy him on a 
whim: Dumbledore, Moody, Voldemort, possibly other Aurors and DEs 
who know his history.  But the one thing he *can* be in control of 
is his classroom.  He's in charge, and making the students toe the 
line is part of that.  He's different from Percy in that respect; I 
don't think Snape loves rules for their own sake, or labors under 
the illusion that as long as you follow the rules bad things won't 
happen.  I think he just uses rules to assert his control.

That's possibly why Neville an Hermione make him so nuts, too.  They 
both undermine his control of the classroom: Neville, by creating 
chaos through his incompetence, and Hermione by conspicuous displays 
of her own expertise.

> 
> At the moment, Snape's future is as mysterious as his past. The 
> last we see of him, Harry notes his expression is "difficult to 
> read" though he looks as "sour and unpleasant" as ever. Harry 
> has never had trouble interpreting Snape's expression before: is 
> this because Snape has changed, or because Harry has? 

I think Harry's perception of Snape is definitely changing at the 
end of GoF.  For four years, Harry has clung to an image of Snape as 
untrustworthy, and ready to turn evil at any moment.  In PS/SS, he 
thinks Snape is trying to kill him and get the Stone.  He discovers 
that Snape actually saved his life and protected the Stone, but it 
doesn't change his view: in PoA he's instantly ready to believe that 
Snape is trying to poison Lupin in order to get Lupin's job.  Then 
he finds out that Snape was actually *helping* Lupin by making the 
Wolfsbane potion -- but in GoF he's still just as ready to believe 
that Snape is a Death Eater.  But the Pensieve revelations, 
Dumbledore's endorsement, and that "Are you prepared" exchaange at 
teh end have finally succeeded in shaking up Harry's view of Snape.  
I don't think Harry's going to have fluffy-bunny feelings toward him 
anytime soon, but I don't he'll leap to quick conclusions of Snape's 
guilt the next time a mystery arises.

At the same time, I think Snape's view of Harry must be changing 
to.  Harry has faced Voldemort, watched a fellow student die, 
suffered the Cruciatus curse... it's going to be pretty darn hard 
for Snape to keep viewing him a spoiled brat coasting along on 
unearned fame.

> 
> Rowling has assured her audience that Snape is "tough" which 
> implies that he is in for it.  Will suffering transform him? 

I think Snape has already suffered, and I think he's as transformed 
as he's going to be.  He's gone from ordinary unpleasant person to 
evil Death Eater to unpleasant person working for the side of the 
Light.  How much more transformed can you get. <G>  Further 
suffering may reveal new facets of his charactger and change his 
relationships with other characters, but I doubt we'll see a major 
personality change.  I definitely don't envision him getting *nicer*.

> Will 
> Snape ever truly be accepted by Sirius and Lupin? By Harry? 
> Would Snape betray them if he could?

I don't think Snape would betray anyone to Voldemort at this point, 
and he seems to have shelved his determination to feed Sirius to the 
Dementors, so no, I don't think he'd betray them.  As for 
acceptance... I think Lupin is capable of being civil to him, and 
it's too early to tell with Harry.  With Sirius, I think the best we 
can hope for is that they'll one day get to the point where they can 
limit their mutual hostility to glaring across the room at each 
other and avoiding violent confrontations.

As for Snape's future role... I'm not gonna try to guess what his 
GoF mission is, I'm willing to let JKR drop that particular 
bombshell in her own good time.  But I do suspect that Snape knows 
something about James and Lily's death that he will eventually 
reveal to Harry.  That murder seems to be the central mystery of the 
series, with various characters dropping new pieces of startling 
information bit by bit.  So far we've had revelations from Hagrid, 
Dumbledore, and Sirius; I think we're due for one from Snape.


Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From boggles at earthlink.net  Tue Apr  9 01:45:15 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:45:15 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quick Snape bits... What's your favourite
 part?
In-Reply-To: <a8t81c+2s5b@eGroups.com>
References: <a8t81c+2s5b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <p05010400b8d7f6b4ac01@[66.149.197.51]>

No: HPFGUIDX 37603

At 11:10 PM +0000 4/8/02, thefortressiserlohn wrote:
>Sorry about the extra post, just realized this after I hit send...
>
>1)Did Barty Crouch, Jr. know that Snape was permanently off of V's
>team?  If so, is he the one informing V about who the trio are, or is
>he staying quiet about it to fit in with the role.  Also, if he
>DIDN'T know, why didn't he try to recruit Snape?

Crouch Jr./Moody is going about being dreadful to all the ex-DE's he 
can find - Snape, Karakoff, Lucius (by way of Draco the Amzing 
Bouncing Ferret) . . . .  He doesn't approach any of them, as he 
can't stand DE's who didn't do their time in Azkaban as he did.  I 
don't think it's clear whether he knows Snape turned or not, although 
Moody certainly did, and thus Crouch could easily find out.


At 7:49 PM +0000 4/8/02, Theresa ryan wrote:
>   P.S- I just thought of this- Fluffy, Norbert, Fang? Anyone think that
>'Fang' is a wee bit OOC for Hagrid? Doesn't he usually favour more...umm,
>cutesy names?

For Hagrid, there is an inverse relationship between the fierceness 
of the name and the fierceness of the creature.  (If he assumes this 
is true for other people, it explains why he doesn't think much of 
Draco . . .)

-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!



From elfundeb at aol.com  Tue Apr  9 04:04:07 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 00:04:07 EDT
Subject: Hermione/Ron/Crouch Sr./Hedgehogs/Twins
Message-ID: <1a9.64fcd9.29e3c237@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37604

Tabouli responded to my comment that Hermione's compassion prompted her to 
question whether Crouch Sr. would put his own son in Azkaban:
 
Also, perhaps, Hermione's instinctive respect for authority figures and 
rules, reflected in her initial refusal to suspect Snape (and then assertion 
that Snape must be OK because Dumbledore respects him).    After Harry's 
treatment at the hands of the Dursleys, we wouldn't expect him to trust or 
respect authority figures.  However, it's interesting that *Ron* is so 
willing to believe the worst of authority figures like Percy the Prefect and 
Snape and Lockhart.  After all, his parents seem to be kind and caring, as 
far as well can see.  Something to do with the losing fight for attention 
with his older brothers and baby sister?  Perhaps knowing that adults are 
fallible and not always trustworthy through watching the foibles of adult 
older brothers?

Tabouli, that's a good addition about Hermione.  I think she tends to intuit 
her conclusions about people based on her own instincts about what's "right." 
  Thus, Snape is not evil; Lockhart must know what he's talking about or 
Dumbledore wouldn't have hired him; Crouch Sr. couldn't put his own son in 
Azkaban even if he abuses House-Elves; neither would Percy; the twins 
wouldn't ever break the law, etc.  She's usually right in her judgments, but 
IMO for the wrong reasons.  Snape turns out to be on Harry's side.  But 
Hermione never asked about what side Quirrell was on; wouldn't she have 
reached the same (wrong) conclusion?  Ron, on the other hand, analyzes the 
information at hand based on his own experience and reaches conclusions based 
on that information.  The problem with his conclusions is not a lack of 
analytical ability (although he tends to jump to conclusions at times) but 
that his information is frequently incomplete or inaccurate.  Ron sees Snape 
on a constant verbal rampage against his friends; kind and caring people like 
his parents don't act that way, so there must be something going on.  Percy 
is an introspective loner in an otherwise outgoing, gregarious family who 
avoids the others, especially the twins and Ron (and I noticed while flipping 
through CoS today that Percy did not even stay with his brothers when Ginny 
was in the chamber).  Because the twins have each other, I think Ron is the 
person who suffers most from Percy's withdrawal.  Based on the information he 
has, I don't think his conclusions about Percy are unreasonable.  Not 
correct, IMO, but hardly an anti-Percy vendetta.

On Sirius and the information he gives the trio about Crouch Sr., Charis 
Julia wrote:

With Sirius there's no problem-
you're told he's mad and dangerous in the beginning, he than proceeds 
to progressively accumulate more badness, till finally it turns out 
that-hey! Guess what! He's really OK after all!  Now that's easy. That's 
simple. That's something one can handle. You 
are told what to believe and you promptly gulp it all down like a 
good little reader.

* * * 

Sirius is the one character who actually 
does attest that he "knew" Crouch. Yet what he actually seems to mean 
is that he had one brush with the man in his life which resulted in 
quite calamitous and utterly unjust results for himself. Now 
obviously Sirius carries a bit of a grudge. And who can blame him? 

I'm so glad you pointed this out.  Sirius seems so sane and logical in GoF 
that it's tempting to take everything he says at face value, but that's not 
necessarily true.  Maybe he's not so sane as he appears, which would be 
helpful to my understanding of Sirius, because I've always had trouble with 
his sudden transformation into a Good Guy and mentor.  I'm just not a good 
little reader.

More Charis Julia on Crouch:

No doubt Crouch Sr 
did indeed leave much to be wished for as a father. But I don't 
believe Barty's assertions that his Dad never really loved him. Quite 
to the contrary he seems genuinely proud when he talks of his son's 
academic success. He just probably was not in the habit of showing it 
much. Sad, but it hardly let's Barty off the hook.

Hmm, sounds a lot like Percy to me - loved his family but too uptight to show 
it.

And on Crouch Sr convicting his son:

The fact that Barty Jr just happened to have a father in high 
places should not affect the enforcement of justice. Of course in 
this case it in fact * did* and the outcome was not very advantageous 
for poor Barty. That is of course equally unacceptable. However 
that's another matter altogether and one that rather deals with the 
oh-so-very-easily corruptible law system the wizarding society has 
working (or not working) here. But it still doesn't alter the fact 
that Crouch using his power and positioning to get his son off would 
* not* have been right.

I absolutely agree with this.  I wanted to put it in my Ambition and Percy 
post but lacked the eloquence.  Of course, if he really wanted the Minister 
of Magic job, he would've done better to have been professional about it; it 
was really a bad political move to tell the jury how to decide the case and 
then state melodramatically, "I have no son!"  This is where, I think, Crouch 
and Percy part company.  I think Percy could do the same in the right 
circumstances, but it would make his stomach churn.

And Charis Julia's closing:

Charis Julia, who really thinks Crouch Sr was hard, harsh and cruel, 
but can't help pitying and even rather liking him. He's definitely 
better than Bagman, who as we all know is in fact the one who is the 
real D.E.V.I.L.!

Amen!  (See below)

 Tabouli's Twin/Hedgehog comment:

       Ooo! The twins are Ever So Evil? Where are the hedgehog hunters?

Hedgehogs?  What were they again?  Since Inish Alley was temporarily at sea, 
I searched the trusty archives and discovered the following:

       F.L.Y.I.N.G.H.E.D.G.E.H.O.G. (Fearful League Yabbering "Innocent 
Narratives
       Generally Harbour Enemies, Death-eaters, Grim Henchmen Or Gangsters")

Well, even Harry doubts that the twins were ever innocent, but my twin theory 
seems otherwise to fit well under this umbrella.    

I also found this from Eloise:

In other words, one of the benefits of membership of the OFH is the 
protection of a very complicated charm, which I would explain if I were Prof 
Flitwick, which protects one from howlers, hexes and curses sent by the 
defenders of the upright citizens who get accused along the way (especially 
in the event of being proved wrong!)

Now, the charm would be really helpful in case the groundswell of support for 
the twins that my every mention of the topic has inspired should ever turn to 
hexes.
So thanks to Eloise for putting them on the watch list despite their 
popularity.  IMO, it's the charismatic ones - the Ludo Bagmans of the world 
who can ward off Azkaban with a well-placed smile at the sentencing hearing - 
that we really need to watch out for.  In fact, one of  the planks on my 
rickety pier is their relationship with the Ever So Evil Ludo Bagman (who was 
a Beater like the twins are).  He was way too interested in their fake wand, 
and IMO it's not because he's, to use his own words, "something of an idiot." 
 I think he sees that their products have a number of possible uses . . . .

Finally, I'll rouse a quick defense against another can(n)on attack against 
the Soon to be Evil! Twins, then beat a quick retreat.  Rohit lobbed the 
following from the H/H ship:
 
I don't think Fred is uncaring or selfish; in fact, of
the two twins, I think he's the one who displays more
unselfish concern for others (not that George isn't
equally kind, but Fred seems the more paternal of the
two).  For example, in CoS, he scolds Oliver for
telling Harry to catch the snitch or die trying when
Harry ends up in the hospital wing.   And in PoA, he
comforts Harry and tells him that there had to be a
time he didn't catch the snitch after the Gryffindor
vs. Hufflepuff match.  

I looked up both episodes.  Fred's response after Wood tells Harry to get the 
Snitch or die trying is "So no pressure, Harry" and a wink.  While this can 
certainly interpreted as an attempt to take the pressure off Harry, it's 
delivered in Fred's characteristic jokester manner, and could be interpreted 
with double meaning.  Later on, during the match, it is George who rebukes 
Wood.  It was also George who tells Harry there had to be a time he didn't 
catch the snitch.  In fact, when I first threw out this idea about a month or 
so ago,  several people produced evidence of caring, concerned twins, but 
those comments all seem to be George.  Fred, on the other hand, always talks 
first (except for the thoughtful, helpful comments, which George initiates), 
and the scene in the owlery suggests that Fred is the leader in their 
schemes.  It also suggests that he has fewer scruples than George.  What 
disturbed me about that scene is that George allowed his conscience to be 
overruled.  To tell the truth, the twins have been on my radar screen ever 
since first reading CoS, where they act like a pair of cat burglars when they 
rescue Harry from the Dursleys.

Early last week, DG made an observation that ties into the non-canonical, 
real-world reason I'm not comfortable with Fred & George:

It has been my experience though, that men cut from the Fred & George
mold tend to make better leaders than those cut from the Percy mold.
Those of my peers who played the game flawlessly and wound up in
positions of power within the school went on to competant, but
indistinguished, careers as middle-managers. Those that played a
little more fast and loose with the rules, used their initiative more
often, and occasionally ran afoul of the rules, seem more inclined
(once they made contact with the Real World) to go forth to greatness.

I agree that Fred and George exhibit many qualities that echo the backgrounds 
of highly successful entrepreneurs.  They are innovators and risk-takers.  
But there is a line between aggressive innovation and leadership and illegal 
activity.  My experience (I am a tax lawyer whose resume includes experience 
in "off balance sheet financing," - gasp - which, yes,  is what got Enron 
into trouble) has been that many want to walk that line, and some view the 
line as much more elastic than it is.  Some of those fall over the line, and 
of those, some fall quite far.  Of those who fall, some get caught and some 
don't.  For some it is a mistake they try not to repeat, but for others the 
edge becomes a way of life.  In short, in the real world, playing fast and 
loose with the rules can lead to legal trouble.  With the twins, their 
rulebreaking for the fun of it, their sometimes pushing things too far (as 
with the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident, which still makes me cringe), the 
implication of the Owlery scene that they're willing to push things VERY 
close to the edge - even George thought it was blackmail, all add up to a 
pair I can't trust not to succumb to the lure of easy financing.

I realize my reading of the twins is highly idiosyncratic, and maybe a bit 
subversive, as my experiences that led me to the Soon to be Evil! Twins 
theory are probably quite different from JKR's; I quite suspect that she 
thinks they're just clever and funny.  But I can't shake the Ever So Evil! 
Twins out of my head, somehow.
    
Debbie, who's finished with the Twins for now and is now going Snape-hunting


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Apr  9 04:30:17 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 00:30:17 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sleeping Woman
References: <a8l7b2+o627@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b101c1df7f$404fd960$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37605

Pippin said:
> Hermione is far more comfortable with the nurturing aspects of 
> her femininity.  She exercises her maternal skills on  various 
> orphaned characters: Neville, Harry, Hagrid,  and Winky.  It is 
> interesting that Ron resists her attempts to mother him, and  that 
> she in turn accepts a date with Viktor Krum knowing that school 
> loyalty will forbid her to indulge her coaching instincts.

I really just believe that Hermione is quite comfortable with *all* the aspects of her femininity.  I mean, she was a bit bashful about telling Ron and Harry about Victor in GoF, but that seemed to be more about her fear of their reactions (teasing, etc.) than anything else.  I don't know what it's like in Britain, but in the States here there's been quite a bit of noise about how young girls are discouraged socially from showing their intelligence in class, and I think that, to an extent, it's true. (I never really experienced it myself as the boys I went to grammar school with - and there were very few of them to begin with - were so dumb that to try to pretend to be stupider would have been quite a feat -- plus, I'm quite oblivious when it comes to what others think about me)  I believe that Hermione shows a certain measure of bravery in respect to her outspokenness in class -- I mean, we've all seen that others look down on her for it, to an extent.  Most girls her age would do anything to conform to the expectations of her peers.

Jo:
>I've never quite been able to fathom what 
>Krum was doing in fancying her, though.  Perhaps all those fangirls 
>were just too scary for the athletically brilliant but socially 
>backward Krum.

*indulgent smile* Silly.  Because she's brilliant, caring, etc. etc.  Plus, I think she's probably got that potential for a sort of dignified beauty that only adults notice and other kids totally miss -- especially now that her teeth are - erm, normal-sized.  I've known alot of girls like this -- all bone-y angles, bushy hair, and belligerent mannerisms -- but underneath you can just *tell*.

Jo again:
>Maybe this is why a romantic relationship between Harry and Hermione 
>has always seemed to be so violently *wrong* somehow.  It seems that 
>a mature Harry would not be able to romantically connect with such a 
>maternal/domineering type.  I've never been one to believe that 
>males *really* want to marry their mothers ;-).

Why does "caring" always equal "maternal" and "intelligent and independent" always equal "domineering" when people are referring to Hermione? *sighs melodramatically*  It's not that I think she's absolutely *perfect*, it's just that with you all calling out her "bad" points from the rooftops, I feel like she needs my support.

hrm.  I guess this all is a little late...there's other couple-day-old posts I want to reply to as well, but I think I ought to get some shut eye at this point...it's been a very hectic weekend.

laura 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From catlady at wicca.net  Tue Apr  9 04:58:50 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 04:58:50 -0000
Subject: Grey Lady / Weasleys /Lily's Parents? / Avada Kedavra / Crouch /CapitaLetter
Message-ID: <a8tsea+krtl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37606

Snape later.

Petra wrote:

> But nothing about the Grey Lady's portrayal in the film supports
> the theory that she may be Voldemort's mother, IIRC. The Grey 
> Lady's costume is definitely not of the time period befitting a 
> woman who could have given birth to Tom Riddle, Jr. near the 
> beginning of the last century. 

While I do not trust the accuracy of ANY costumes in the film, note 
that many of the pedestrians on Diagon Alley in "now" or 1991 are 
wearing their Dickens Faire costumes, others their Renaissance Faire 
costumes. 

Mecki wrote:

> Twin girls are born (it is not unusual, once twins are in the 
> family)- Ingrid and Jennifer. Only Jenny  survives. When F&G see
> the baby they are told *this is Jenny*, but they say Ginny- and it
> stuck.  This would explain, how overprotective Molly is with Ginny.
> One of my twin-daughters died shortly after her birth and it took a
>  long time and hard work, not to see her grave every time her 
> twin-sister had as much as a cold or a nose-bleed. I'm still 
> overprotective, but I know why, so I try to work against it. For 
> Molly it would be the second child-death, and that is absolutely 
> impossible to cope with.

Oh, Mecki, *ouch* (That was an expression of sympathy for you). Let's 
spare Molly the *second* child death by assuming that the death of 
"Daisy" was enough to make her extra overprotective of her youngest, 
and only surviving girl. The only reason for assuming "David" to be a 
boy was only for people who want Ron to be a seventh son.

Rohit wrote:

> Ginny's full name COULD be Imogene. 

I prefer Iphigenia, except that both Iphigenia and Imogen conflict 
with the notion that those Weasleys give their children plain 
ordinary Muggle-style names.

Elfun Debbie wrote:

> all add up to a pair I can't trust not to succumb to the lure of 
> easy financing. I realize my reading of the twins is highly 
> idiosyncratic, and maybe a bit subversive, as my experiences that 
> led me to the Soon to be Evil! Twins theory are probably quite 
> different from JKR's;

Yes, but. Succumbing to the lure of easy financing (I'm only 
*borrowing* the money from the employees's pension fund: I'll pay it 
back as soon as my scheme inevitably makes a fortune) isn't the same 
as joining the Death Eaters... 

Rohit wrote:

> Anyone else besides me curious as to what happened to Lily's 
> parents. (snip) Just wondering why THEY are not taking care of 
> Harry, and wondering if whatever happened to them maybe added fuel 
> to Petunia's resentment of the wizarding world

They must be dead, because Dumbledore said the Dursleys are the only 
family Harry has left. I don't know why they'd dead so young. From 
the way Petunia spoke of them, I don't get the impression that she 
particularly minded losing them.

Charis Julia wrote:

> Well, take the granting of new powers to the Aurors.
> Powers to kill. 

I'm pretty sure that they were already allowed to kill. What was new 
was the permission to kill *via Avada Kedavra*. I wish I knew why 
Avada Kedavra -- I wish I knew why the Unforgiveable Curses are 
unforgiveable. It might have something to do with what makes the Dark 
Arts dark. 

>  But it still doesn't alter the fact that Crouch using his power
> and positioning to get his son off would *not* have been right.

It seems to me that there is a general mind-set in Anglo-American 
culture that any judge *should* recuse himerself from judging hiser 
own child, parent, spouse, or sibling. Because to show mercy to such 
a person would be considered corrupt (unlike some other cultures 
which view family loyalty as far more important than law or justice). 
But to *fail* to show mercy to such a person would be considered a 
disgraceful lack of normal human affection (presumably unlike some 
other cultures, maybe Sparta or Roman, which cosider 'normal human 
affection' to be a shameful weakness.)

> Remember Sirius's comment about looking at how a man treats his 
> subordinates to understand what he's really like?

I remain alarmed that JKR put that remark into Sirius's mouth in a 
chapter in which pretty much all else Sirius said turned out to be 
pretty much wrong. Is she trying to cast doubt on that truism?

Weaver asked:

> Why do Muggles get a capital letter?

All the words that JKR made up are capitalized and the words that JKR 
believed to be words that already existed aren't. I find that 
annoying, as I doubt that the wizard folk would capitalize the few 
words invented by wizards -- surely they would not be willing to 
admit that such words as 'wizard' (no, Grey Wolf, 'warlock' is not 
capitalised: 'Harry ate breakfast each morning in the Leaky Cauldron, 
where he liked watching the other guests: funny little witches from 
the country, up for a day's shopping; venerable-looking wizards 
arguing over the latest article in Transfiguration Today; wild-
looking warlocks; raucous dwarfs;') were invented by Muggles.




From MsSeverusLucius at aol.com  Tue Apr  9 01:15:10 2002
From: MsSeverusLucius at aol.com (MsSeverusLucius at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 21:15:10 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's your favourite part?
Message-ID: <1a1.5e0d76.29e39a9e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37607

As an old romantic and ugly duckling sort, it was the 4th book at the Yule 
ball when Hermione looks so lovely that no one even recognizes her...the 
whole storyline and her night with a guy who finally adores her will always 
warm my heart!
MsSL 

<< what's your favourite part in all of the books? I don't want 

>to see anybody saying 'I love them all, I can't pick just one!' Well, now 

>you have to! >>



icq  152784873




From PolgaraTheSorcess at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  9 06:24:55 2002
From: PolgaraTheSorcess at hotmail.com (Polgara TheSorcess)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 02:24:55 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] More on Ginny's name
Message-ID: <F140aYq9vgFIbUdX3mu0000325f@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37608

Catlady wrote:

>Rohit wrote:
> > Ginny's full name COULD be Imogene.
>
>I prefer Iphigenia, except that both Iphigenia and Imogen conflict
>with the notion that those Weasleys give their children plain
>ordinary Muggle-style names.

Agreed. The Weasleys do seem to tend to give their children ordinary English 
styled names. However, since the whole survival of the alphabet naming 
theory depends on Percy and Ron being known by their middle names, why can't 
the same argument be made for Ginny?

Of course, now we need a reason as to why the Weasleys would call Ginny by 
her middle name. Hmm... I subscribe to the theory that the Weasley 
granparents were killed along with David/Daisy while Molly was away giving 
birth and Percy was hiding after breaking a rule. Therefore, I propose that 
Ginny was named in honor of her grandmother. However, it was too painful for 
Arthur and Molly to remember their dear lost parents and child every time 
they say the name, so they eventually decided to call her by her middle name 
(Virginia?), which was soon shorted to Ginny by her older brothers.

Now, what could Ginny's real first name be then? Although I don't see a way 
for the royalty pattern and the alphabet pattern to coexist (Bill is either 
William or Billius, can't be both), Ginny's first name could be Isabella. 
There was a Queen Isabella of Spain, and the name was used in English novels 
up to 19th century I believe (Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey). For these who 
want more parallels between Lily and Ginny though, how about Iris?

Polgara

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.





From dazed_sparkling_dreamer at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Apr  8 19:11:39 2002
From: dazed_sparkling_dreamer at yahoo.co.uk (dazed_sparkling_dreamer)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:11:39 -0000
Subject: Was Snape's treatment of Hermione/ Snape's treatment of the Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <a8q27c+u1qp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8sq1b+l145@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37609

> Snape's behavior in the colliding curse scene might well betray 
> Snape's judgement about the particular students.  He tells Goyle
> to go the the hospital wing, because Goyle doesn't have sense 
> enough to realize what to do.  Hermione understands what to do;
> I think she just wanted Snape to show a bit of sympathy.  With his 
> treatment of Malfoy, & Co., Snape is cultivating for LV, a next 
> generation of Death Eaters who will be wimps.


A thought on this, "being soft on the Slytherins makes them wimps" 
thing.

I do think this is an attempt to turn them from the dark, but not by 
making them wimps.

The slytherins are the bad guys.  The house that is intrinsically 
bad, right down to it's founder.  All Slytherins go bad.  Now we know 
this isn't true but it's the impression the school has.  When one 
Slytherin goes bad it's the norm.  When someone from another house 
(SIrus Black for example) does it's a huge exception to the rule.

When the school has a quidditch match everyone cheers whoever is 
playing Slytherin, no one joins in their truiumphs, and cooperation 
with them seems to be non-exsitent.

Even Dumbledore's speech at the end of PS/SS when he changes the 
flags.  He could of changed the points before, that would of been 
sensitive, this wasn't.  He sent a year of slytherins off into the 
world feeling increadibly bitter.
 
Now imagine going through all this as an adolescent.  THe most 
emotionally screwy and embarrising years of your life and almost hte 
entire school hates you.  Hell probably a lot of people can remember 
feeling like this at some point.  Now imagine this for seven years!  
This would be traumatic anyway but these are also the most ambitous 
people in the school.  They may well feel that well what is the point 
in being 'good', staying on the 'light' side.  The light side has 
rejected them. 

This is simplifying it, but I believe it would make them far easier 
to tempt over to the dark.

So Snape favours them, supports them over everyone else to show them 
that someone does.  Someone doesn't think they are evil scum.  Then 
they will also trust him if they have to make that choice.

And he wants Slytherin to win of course!

Just a theory.  





From elfundeb at aol.com  Tue Apr  9 11:26:31 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:26:31 EDT
Subject: Weasleys /Lily's Parents? / Avada Kedavra...
Message-ID: <143.c8ea49f.29e429e7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37610

In a message dated 4/9/2002 1:01:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
catlady at wicca.net writes (re Fred and George):


> Yes, but. Succumbing to the lure of easy financing (I'm only 
> *borrowing* the money from the employees's pension fund: I'll pay it 
> back as soon as my scheme inevitably makes a fortune) isn't the same 
> as joining the Death Eaters... 
> 
> 
I should clarify here.  I don't think Fred & George are going to join the 
Death Eaters, just like I don't read most people's suggestion of Percy's 
vulnerability as a suggestion that he will join them.  Rather, the idea is 
that for different reasons, each is susceptible to manipulation by the Death 
Eaters, which will get them into trouble from which they will not find it 
easy to escape. 

Debbie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  9 10:10:43 2002
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (ms_petra_pan)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:10:43 -0000
Subject: Crouch Jr. [was] Crouch Sr
In-Reply-To: <a8sjkm+tea7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8uen3+i0nf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37611

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" <trog at w...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" <pollux46 at h...> wrote:
> > Eileen continues:
> >> Barty Jr. is an ungrateful b-eeeeeeeeeep. Don't care how unloving 
> >> he thought his father was. Being under Imperius curse was a heap 
> >> nicer than Azkaban, especially since he was guilty.
> 
> Add "manipulative SOB" to the list. What was that shrieking scene at 
> the sentencing, if not an attempt to emotionally stab his father, 
and 
> cast doubt upon his motivations?
> 
> That scene sets the tone for our suspicions of 
Crouch-as-politically-
> motivated. Harry (and us) come away from it convinced that Crouch 
> sent his own, innocent son to Azakaban. And then later we find out 
> that not only was Jr guilty, but Sr *knew* he was guilty. He 
> wasn't "turning his own son over to the Dementors", he was 
> instead "putting Ol' Yeller down".

What if Crouch Jr. was indeed in the wrong place at the wrong time?

It's possible that the short time he spent in Azkaban was enough to 
complete (if not begin)  his "going over to the dark side" since 
there's certainly nothing holding him back - his mother was no Lily 
Potter and his father has disowned him.  It'd be an interesting bit of 
self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak.  Imprison the not entirely 
innocent and he transforms into what he was accused of being.  This 
could also support Voldemort as a father substitute.

Consider this: if Crouch Jr. was already a full-fledged DE when he was 
caught, wouldn't his denial of Voldemort at the trial make him less 
than Voldemort's faithful servant whose loyalty has NEVER wavered?

Petra
a
n
 
     
 





From kerelsen at quik.com  Tue Apr  9 12:53:30 2002
From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 08:53:30 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Tuition (a little late)
References: <a8tfbj+r0ou@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004101c1dfc5$8dc788a0$c189d5d1@kerelsen>

No: HPFGUIDX 37612


----- Original Message -----
From: "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at aol.com>

> I was *going* to reply that this is just an assumption on
Vernon's part, why
> would he know how Hogwarts operates.  But then I remembered:
He's married to
> an alumna!  So perhaps Vernon knows something we don't, after
all.

Um, actually Vernon is married to the sister of an alumna... and
a sister who has such dislike for her sister and her sisters
world that I don't feel that we can be sure that Petunia Dursley
can be a valid source of information about Hogwarts.

Of course, if we posit that there IS tuition at Hogwarts, maybe
part of the anger and jealousy Petunia has is because the money
that paid for Lily's education mean that she (Petunia) had to
settle for less of an education than she desired... Trying to
estimate Petunia's age from her appearance is difficult, but
she's older than Lily and if enough older, the money needed to
pay for Hogwarts could have taken away from Petunia's "university
fund" or something like that... (Was Lily younger or older than
Petunia?  I can't recall if that was even stated in the books and
I don't have my copies handy to check...)

Bernadette

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).




From Whirdy at aol.com  Tue Apr  9 12:46:01 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 08:46:01 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crouch Jr. [was] Crouch Sr
Message-ID: <bf.1e6733e9.29e43c89@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37613

In a message dated 4/9/02 8:21:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com writes:


> Consider this: if Crouch Jr. was already a full-fledged DE when he was 
> caught, wouldn't his denial of Voldemort at the trial make him less 
> than Voldemort's faithful servant whose loyalty has NEVER wavered?
> 

Several interesting points are raised here concerning the trial of Barty Jr 
aside from the niceties of reasonable doubt.  

However, if Barty Jr was a DE should he not also bear the Dark Mark, which 
would have gone a long way to support Barty Sr hostility, although given 
maniacal rage of Sr, it is doubtful that lack of the DM would have had any 
impact either.

whirdy  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From weaver at schnoogle.com  Tue Apr  9 13:21:38 2002
From: weaver at schnoogle.com (... Weaver ...)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 06:21:38 -0700
Subject: Acronyms, Muggle Capitalising Responses, the Grey Lady.
Message-ID: <200204091321.g39DLcE24311@mail3.bigmailbox.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37614

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020409/a430904d/attachment.ksh>

From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Apr  9 14:17:06 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:17:06 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sleeping Woman/Hermione
References: <a8lb4t+mt1u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00cc01c1dfd1$3aef3a40$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37615

Me:
>On a side note, I would like to add that although I am not 
>particularly happy with it, I do believe that if JKR intends to pair 
>people off in the future books, the pairs will most likely be H/G and 
>R/Hr.  I don't like it, but from the way Jo's writing at this point, 
>that's my prediction.

Dave:
>May I ask what is the basis for this prediction?  I ask because 
>sometimes avid shippers get accused of a degree of wishful thinking, 
>so it's refreshing to hear someone make a prediction they don't like.

Well, I've wracked the depths of my mind and am thoroughly unable to come up with a strong reason for this.  It's more of a -- feeling.  Just the way JKR has set up the dynamic between R/H (and to a lesser extent, H/G), it makes me feel as if that's where she's heading.  Of course, we all know how she likes to do an about-face even now and then ^_~, but at this point, R/H, H/G is where she seems to be heading.

On the other hand, my prediction *could* just be based on the words I live my life by -- expect the worst.  ^_~ Anyway, it's not so much that I'm a H/H shipper, it's more that I'm an anti-R/H and H/G shipper.  As couples, I don't like the idea of those characters together.  Plus that OBHWF thing makes my skin do the crawlies.

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Apr  9 14:38:59 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:38:59 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] LONG: In Defense of Ginny (was Re: The Sleeping  Woman/Generational Parallels)
References: <1017979942.30809.68148.m10@yahoogroups.com> <3CAEB574.1097EAD@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <00d701c1dfd4$48eae920$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37616

Christine:
>*takes deep breath and tries hard not to panic* As 
>this is my first post here, let me warn you that I can be very blunt and
>sarcastic when the topic is near and dear to my heart, as it is at the moment.

*smiles* Me too.  I try to have a nice debate, everyone else thinks they're being viciously attacked.  *long sigh* Got to learn to be more gentle.

David wrote:
>There is dissatisfaction among some listies with the way women
> are presented in general in HP.

Christine again:
>*snorts* I certainly haven't been dissatisfied. Since the books are told from
>the point of view of a boy, well, they're going be somewhat boy-oriented rather
>than girl-oriented. 

Me neither, actually.  And I agree totally with the fact that it *is* Harry's POV.  He's just not too concerned about girls at this point.

Me:
> Being female, young, and American, I sort of automatically bristle at the
> connotations and stereotypes associated with the words "masculine" and
> "feminine"

Christine:
>I am female, young, and American as well, but I am not at all offended by
>David's statement as you seem to be, Laura. On the contrary, I think you could
>be reading too much into it. I do not believe that David's intent was to be
>sexist <snip>

^_~ I wasn't accusing anyone of sexism.  I was just stating a fact -- sort of qualifying where I was coming from.  I live in a very rural area where sexism is a very real thing and "feminine" very much means "frilly, soft, and nice" and masculine  means "strong, dumb, kind of thick neck" (okay, that was a bit of exaggeration, but you see what I mean).

Christine:
>In a very real sense, Harry's been programmed to have the stereotypical "stiff
>upper lip" by his experiences. It's only now that he's beginning to learn--from
>Mrs. Weasley, from Hermione, and yes, even from Ginny--that it's _all_right_ to
>just let go sometimes.

And this is where I start to bristle.  I simply *do not* understand why there weren't any male figures included in that list.  I mean, I know we're discussing female influence on Harry at this point, but you make it sound as if Harry is only learning to show his emotions through females.  Whenever I think of someone who is teaching Harry to open up to his emotions, it's Hagrid.  Mrs. Weasley is just sort of bustling (although an excellent mom, really) and Hermione may show a fair bit of caring for *others*, but when it comes to hiding her own insecurities and strong emotions, she can be just as stiff-upper-lip as Harry (an example of her cracking is when she smacks Draco  in CoS).  Ginny hasn't really been around enough or developed enough as a character for us to consider her to have any real effect on Harry.  Hagrid, on the other hand, is emotions just spewing all over the place.  I think he's probably incapable of not showing how he feels and keeping his stiff-upper-lip (this phrase sort of makes me laugh).  If anyone can be slotted into the role  of teaching Harry to open up, it's him.  (In a very symbolic way as well, since it is Hagrid who first rescues Harry from the depths of emotional deprivation)..


Christine:
>I like Hermione (I see quite a bit of her in me, in fact), but
>at the same time, I'm not convinced from canon that she and Harry are meant to
be.

Me neither ^_^.  Personally, I'm still trying to hang on to my original anti-shipping status.  Although, H/H doesn't seem as grossly wrong as H/G.  Don't really know why..must think some more on this one..

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Apr  9 15:00:58 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:00:58 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quidditch, Ginny's good qualities and more (inc. ships; Lupin/Snape treatment of Hermione)
References: <a8o4e5+ivcq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00de01c1dfd7$5b207120$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37617

rohit said:
>For me it doesn't involve "ickle Ronniekins" so much "getting 
>glory" as being provided the opportunity to shine/excel much as 
>Harry and Hermione have already been provided in spades

I think Ron needs this as well.  His jealously really alarms me.  On one hand, it's totally normal and understandable (to a point), but on the other... Jo could be setting the stage for something big.  So, as I really don't relish the idea of Evil!Ron or even UnwittinglyEvil!Ron, I hope he is given a chance to be brilliant in his own right, and SOON.

Rohit: 
 >And we've all seen how fierce a defender Ron is, for 
>his family, for Harry, and for Hermione.  
>Anyone says a bad word about any of 'em, and Ron is 
>ready to kill them.  

^_^ I love this about Ron -- his loyalty.  Which is why I was SO upset with him for his behavior in GoF.  It just seemed, in some ways, a little out of character.  Then, in some ways, it seemed totally in-character.  So what does this mean?  Is Ron slowly changing for the fiery little boy we all know and love to a green-eyed monster -- right under our noses?  *shudders* ... *really doesn't want an Evil!Ron*

Rohit:
>In fact, in the 4 books up to now, if I had to make a 
>bet based on *only the information and no speculation 
>from any hints or interpretation of that information* 
>that we've been given, I'd say the most likely 
>romantic pairings are Ron and Hermione and Harry and 
>Ginny,just because it'd be a smile-inducing ending 
>and, more importantly, those are the only >relationships between relatively major characters in 
>the books in which we've seen any romantic interest on 
>the part of at least one party towards the other (Ron 
>is definitely possessive of Hermione around Viktor, 
>and Ginny likes Harry, and there is indication that 
>Hermione returns Ron's feelings towards her to some 
>extent).  It's not what I want to happen, but it's the 
>most likely so far, it seems to be the direction 
>Rowling is directing us in

My thoughts exactly, as so much better put.

Rohit:
>But... Rowling has definitely created some ambiguity 
>on Hermione's feelings (wow, a teenaged girl who 
>doesn't know what she wants, geez, I've never run into 
one of THOSE before!), 

Oh, I know *exactly* what I want.  ^_~
Actually, I agree that there is, indeed, ambiguity -- however, I see very little interest on Herm's part for Harry.  And vice versa.  However, who knows what may happen?

<snip a bunch of junk I pretty much agree with>Rohit:
>There is, of course, one thing we've all been ignoring 
>in all of these shipping conversations--that everyone 
>could end up alone.

This is pretty much what I was expecting up until I joined the discussion (and mad rampant ship speculations) here.  I mean, some casual dating, sure.  But this is (sort of) a children's book, and it is (definitely) not a romance-oriented novel.  The plot is driven by action, humor, etc. -- not crushes and romantic angst (which is all fine by me, but seriously, how much more romantic angst do we need in literature today?).  And, of course, they could all end up dead.  *wicked grin* Oh, yes.  Mass carnage.  Definitely my cup of tea. ^_^

laura (who was only joking about the mass carnage...sort of)  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Apr  9 15:21:41 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:21:41 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's treatment of Hermione
References: <1FB2B398-4A12-11D6-B637-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <00eb01c1dfda$40389880$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37618

Porphyria said:
>I like to imagine she's the authorial voice at these 
>moments telling us the reader that Snape's really a 
>good guy. Either that or she's discovered that he >secretly owns a kitten, but that would be pure 
>speculation. :-)

Oh, that would be just like Hermione, wouldn't it?  Uncovering the dark, deep, hidden secrets of the so-called authority figures around her -- like lycanthropy, animagi-status, and..kittens. ^_^ *trying quite valiantly not to break into a fit of giggles*

Tex:
>Snape's behavior in the colliding curse scene might well betray 
>Snape's judgment about the particular students.  He tells Goyle
>to go the the hospital wing, because Goyle doesn't have sense 
>enough to realize what to do.  Hermione understands what to do;
>I think she just wanted Snape to show a bit of sympathy.  

Erm, I think she was in a little bit too much pain to be plotting *anything* (even a bit of harmless sympathy-getting) at that point.  It wasn't like she was hanging around or anything, waiting for acknowledgement, she was whimpering in pain and trying to assess the damage.  Every time I think of that scene I just shudder.  I mean, aside from the blatant cruelty of the evil-one-known-as-Snape, can you *imagine* the PAIN Hermione must have been in?  I mean, have any of you ever had braces?  It's freaking torture, I tell you, and that's just the pain caused by moving your teeth a couple millimeters -- the way Hermione's teeth were growing it must have been -- arghh...can't think about it.

 Marina:
> I think one of Snape's problems is his tendency to project his own 
> mindset on other people.  Take his reaction to the Prank: Snape 
> would never have set someone up for a werewolf encounter unless he 
> actually meant to kill them; so he can't believe Sirius could've 
> done it without meaning to kill *him*.  In Hermione's case, he's 
> convinced that her behavior in class indicates a desire to show him 
> up and make herself look important, because that's why *he* would've 
> done it when he was a student.

..and someone else said that Hermione always expects the best of seemingly E-V-I-L authority figures (such as Snape) because *she* projects *her* beliefs on them.. Sort of as if Snape is assuming the worst of her and she is assuming the best of him for exactly the same reasons.  Nicely contrary, isn't it?

and one more thing...

Finwitch:
Hermione&Ron -- Yes, I see it coming unless either one dies first. Maybe they even marry during 7th or 6th book? Considering that 17 is legal age of adulthood... I see Ron getting in trouble for it... attacking Malfoy. "He threatened my *wife*, Professor". Kissing 
Hermione in Gryffindor Common Room "You say I may not kiss my *wife*? What kind of stupid person made that sort of "rule" up?" AND, this would be something Ron's brothers haven't done yet - none of THEM is married. (Or we'd seen Ron's sister-in-law by now). Oh - and then we can get a *pregnant* Hermione, getting nasty at every one, refusing to drink a potion "might hurt my baby, Sir, I better not", Ron, as father, standing up for her and the baby... AND Ron can finally do 
something his siblings haven't! Molly and Arthur giving him advice about fatherhood... Baby at Hogwarts! Wouldn't you just love it?

*starts to wretch violently* Oh, oh..finwitch, you've just about done me in with this one.  If *that* happens I believe I will completely renounce life altogether..aggh..how could you "love" that?? ^_~ I swear, some of you have a *really* weird idea of what is "cute".  That is just...Wrong.  With a capital "W".  Wrong, as in everything that is awful in the universe.  Oh, ick.

Thank God, I think that's the one thing we can definitely say JKR *won't* be doing.

laura (still look a bit green about the gills)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Apr  9 15:33:17 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:33:17 -0000
Subject: Ginny's "bond" with Voldie was Re: Ginny
Message-ID: <a8v1jt+rpts@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37619

Penny wrote:

>>I'm sorry, but I always wonder about this whenever it gets 
raised because,well, Ginny was *unconscious* during the entire 
battle between Harry & Riddle in the Chamber. She says that the 
last thing she remembers before losing consciousness was 
Riddle coming out of the diary. So, I guess I'm always perplexed 
about this so-called "bond" between them. Yes, she wrote in a 
diary& maintained correspondence with him over a period of 
months. But, when he materialized, she faded to black. 
:::shrugs::: <<

::boggles:: Did I miss the irony markers? Is the mother of this 
list, *this list*, saying that she can't imagine that a person might 
get a little too caught up in the passtime of sending messages 
back and forth? To the point of emotional dependency ? <veg>

And *our* list isn't even magical. Riddle could have enticed Ginny 
to sample his  memories, too. Imagine eavesdropping on stuffy 
Professor McGonagall as a teenager, not to mention Binns alive 
and kicking (possibly), Hogsmeade, The Forbidden Forest,etc. 
I'd bet Ginny got to see a lot of Riddlevision.  They wouldn't 
have been able to interact during the memory, but afterwards? 
It's chilling.

Pippin





From j.wolf at sympatico.ca  Tue Apr  9 15:36:17 2002
From: j.wolf at sympatico.ca (~J. Wolf~)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 11:36:17 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hedwig and Tuituion...
References: <1018366032.4576.13587.m9@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CB30A71.7C98C7FE@sympatico.ca>

No: HPFGUIDX 37620

Hey all,

Had to add in my two cents...

>
>    From: Wanda Mallett <witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: What's your favourite part?
>
>  "Theresa ryan" <theresa_ryan85 at h...> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > I'm afraid I must ask your for what must be the most clichd
> question on this newsgroup; what's your favourite part in all of the books?
>
> After reading all four books, of all the characters it is Hedwig! She has a way of getting her point across to Harry! Especially when he doesn't have a snack for her after one of her deliverys for Harry! When she wacks him on the head with her wing! I would have to re-read that part over a few times and all of us giggled over that! Plus when Moody turned Malfoy into a ferret! William would repeat that over and over again to his brother! I think he would have liked to do that to his brother James! Sibling teasing! Actually, all 4 books have so many great parts! Just reading the posts jogs the memory! So, between animals and main characters and even those awesome Weasley Twins, you have to love it all! Well, we do in our house! Great question!
>
> Schnoogles,
>
> Wanda the Witch of Revere, Massachusetts and Her Very Merry Band of Muggles 100%
>

I have to agree with Wanda here.  Hedwig rocks.  Though, my fave would have to be Hermione.  I love how she changes and develops over the four books, we get to know her more than the others, I think.  I find that Ron sort of stays static in his character development, and that Harry is cast in the role of the Hero.  While there are great things for him to do, he will always be the hero.

But we have watched Hermione change, soften some, and blossom into a beautiful (with a little help) woman.

>    From: "GulPlum" <plumeski at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Hogwarts Tuition (a little late)
>
> "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I was *going* to reply that this is just an assumption on Vernon's
> part, why
> > would he know how Hogwarts operates.  But then I remembered: He's
> married to
> > an alumna!  So perhaps Vernon knows something we don't, after all.
>
> er... he's married to an alumna's sister, who was presumably a child
> herself at the time, and so probably wouldn't know all the ins and
> outs. And if Petunia *did* know, considering she and Vernon don't
> like to talk about magic (or Lily), I'd find it unlikely that they'd
> ever have discussed it.
>
> Furthermore, Vernon's own son is about to go a boarding school
> himself, so Vernon's views are probably coloured by the fact that he
> knows he tuition is payable.

Question on this: If there was tuition, would it be closer to University costs or College costs?? Just curious. :P

Cheers,

Jamieson

--
~~'Writers are liars my dear, surely you know that by now?'~~ Neil Gaiman in Sandman: Dream County





From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  9 16:13:37 2002
From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Favorite Part / Beast Animagi
Message-ID: <20020409161338.43806.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37621

ONE OF my favorite parts is the time-travel sequence.
Very cleverly written, that one. It surprises
first-time readers with the real climax when they
thought the book is coming to an ending.

Can a person be a beast animagi, i.e. be able to turn
into a dragon or a puffskein? What does Fantastic
Beasts have to say about this (I've no copy, see...)?

-Ron Yu

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  9 15:44:38 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:44:38 -0000
Subject: Dark Marks and Crouch Jr.
In-Reply-To: <bf.1e6733e9.29e43c89@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a8v296+np7j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37622

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/9/02 8:21:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> ms_petra_pan at y... writes:

> > Consider this: if Crouch Jr. was already a full-fledged DE when 
> > he was caught, wouldn't his denial of Voldemort at the trial 
> > make him less than Voldemort's faithful servant whose loyalty 
> > has NEVER wavered?

You make a good point.  It is true that in the Pensieve scene, 
Barty, Jr. consistently denies any wrongdoing, while his co-
defendant (Mrs. Lestrange?) speaks like a heretic about to be burned 
who refuses to recant her apostacy.  (I also think other Inquisition-
type similarities to this tribunal are completely intentional.)

> However, if Barty Jr was a DE should he not also bear the Dark 
> Mark, which would have gone a long way to support Barty Sr 
> hostility, although given maniacal rage of Sr, it is doubtful that 
> lack of the DM would have had any impact either.

We saw in GoF that the visibility of the Dark Mark seems to be 
directly linked to Voldemort's strength.  Thus Karkaroff tells Snape 
that his has 'never been clearer' and he's very alarmed by what that 
means, since he named names to get out of Azkaban.  The implication 
here is that prior to the tournament, the Mark was somewhat 
indistinct on the arms of Death Eaters.  And since Barty, Jr. and 
his cohorts were accused of torturing the Longbottoms for 
information about Voldemort after his fall, presumably their marks 
all would have been 'dormant' at that time.  That may be what 
alarmed them in the first place, noticing the Marks fading on their 
arms when the curse rebounded from Harry onto Voldemort.

Also, Sirius is confused by what Karkaroff could have been showing 
Snape when Harry tells him of what he witnessed in the Potions 
dungeon.  It doesn't seem to be common knowledge in the wizarding 
world that Death Eaters carry a magical mark that Voldemort can use 
to summon them.  If Sirius had known about this and if the 
authorities had known, he might have thought to use his lack of a 
Dark Mark as a defense when he was accused of betraying James and 
Lily.

--Barb

The Last Temptation is over and it's almost time for the Triangle 
Prophecy...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/AuthorLinks/Barb




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Tue Apr  9 16:57:24 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:57:24 -0000
Subject: Ginny  and Riddle
In-Reply-To: <008301c1deac$3e723da0$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a8v6hk+d6pu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37623

> Me:
> > Poor Devin got a lot of flack for pairing Ginny with Harry a few 
weeks ago because she is the only other character to have had a 
serious run-in with Voldemort.  I believe he is on to something, 
though.
> 
> Christine:
> 
> <<<<*nods* As do I. Even if nothing romantic comes of it, there is 
the undeniable fact that Ginny has had an experience that gives her 
an understanding of Harry on a level that no one else has.>>>>>>

Penny:
> I'm sorry, but I always wonder about this whenever it gets raised 
because, well, Ginny was *unconscious* during the entire battle 
between Harry & Riddle in the Chamber.  She says that the last thing 
she remembers before losing consciousness was Riddle coming out of 
the diary.  So, I guess I'm always perplexed about this so-
called "bond" between them.  
> 
I'm not sure if Penny is answering my point or Christine's, but the 
logic does go through a dog-leg.  I'm with Penny that AFAWK Ginny's 
experience (even if she had extended discussions with Riddle) doesn't 
necessarily give her a deeper understanding of Harry, or a 'bond' 
with him (or Voldemort) in that sense.

What I meant was that Ginny has symbolically been placed in 
relationship to Voldemort-Riddle in COS.  This (in my argument) gives 
her a symbolical relationship to Harry which may well be exploited in 
future books.  This was really what I was referring to in saying 
Devin was 'on to something' - not any implications for a romantic 
relationship.

BTW, in my reply to Laura I inadvertently anticipated Philip Nel's 
discussion question on gender.  I have already jumped the gun on 
rules in the Potterverse, and I may compound my errors by coming in 
belatedly to the Percy discussion.

Penny again:

> ....and has no experience whatsoever with psycho-babble

I don't pretend to know much about this archetypal symbolic stuff 
either: a little learning is a dangerous thing, but it isn't half fun 
making it up as you go along!

Pippin - I'm still wondering about sexuality versus femininity as 
what this is all about (if it's about anything at all!).

David




From Edblanning at aol.com  Tue Apr  9 16:58:45 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:58:45 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discussion Question #2 
Message-ID: <f2.19b8b4ef.29e477c5@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37624


> > Does Snape act out of a  petty devotion to rules and procedures, 
> > or is that  just an excuse to make people  miserable? How does 
> > his attitude toward rules and discipline compare to Percy's?
> 
jc:
> Snape will quite clearly break rules to advance himself and to 
> accomplish a goal (I can see him actually slipping Veritaserum into 
> Harry's drink, and his threat to Neville's toad was very real.)  
> However, by forcing the rules to be followed he's not only keeping 
> his students in line while working on a dangerous subject, but is 
> 

Me (Eloise):
I'm not sure where you get the idea that Snape will clearly break rules to 
advance himself. Yes, I know Marina once kindly pointed out to me that 
joining the DEs must have broken a few rules, but that aside :-).....
What I mean is that being a DE is something totally different, its badness of 
a completely different order of magnitude, *beyond* rule-breaking, possibly 
(though I don't personally think this is the case with Snape) having an 
ideological element.
Before I get myself into trouble here, I'd better say that I don't think that 
one's beliefs justify acts that others consider unethical or immoral, but I 
do intellectually acknowledge that others may act from a different ethical 
standpoint and do things that I consider wrong, for reasons which *they* 
think are right. 

The only time I can think of a time when Snape actually breaks a *rule* (as 
opposed to the law) is when he follows Lupin out of bounds as a student.
Would he actually slip Harry some Veritaserum? I'm not so sure. It would get 
him into extremely deep water with Dumbledore if he were found out. I don't 
think he would actually go against Dumbledore without very pressing need. 
Convinced as he is about his own view of Lupin, it is not until Lupin has, in 
his eyes, *proved* himself unworthy that he takes action by ensuring his 
resignation. As for the toad.....I don't think I can talk about the toad any 
more after Tabouli's post.....but we don't know what would have happened to 
Trevor had Neville's potion been wrong, nor that he couldn't/ wouldn't have 
remedied it.

No, Snape's life seems to me to be full of unfulfilled ambition and 
unaccomplished goals. I think one of the reasons is that, these days, he 
*does* play by the rules. As one who believes that he has rejoined the Light 
side out of conviction, but doesn't temperamentally *want* to be there, I 
think that perhaps part of his devotion to rules and procedures is a 
projection (that word again) of a self-discipline necessary for him to 
embrace his new life. 

> > Harry 
> > has never had trouble interpreting Snape's expression before: is 
> >

jc:
> I think everyone has changed because of the events in GoF.  Snape, by 
> this point, may still hate Harry like nothing else, but has to 
> respect him because of his fight against Voldemort, as well as put 
> aside petty personal issues because of the graveness of the situation 
> 

Me (Eloise):
Has he never had trouble before because he saw what was there or because he 
saw what he believed was there? Initially the former, I think, after which it 
becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as their relationship spirals into deeper 
and deeper hatred.

This respect issue is interesting. I have argued that one of Snape's problems 
with Harry is that he is jealous of the way he has constantly thwarted him, 
the way he has repeatedly defeated Voldemort in a way that he would like to 
have been able to do (whether out of desire for recognition, naked ambition, 
need for revenge, desire for redemption, whatever your interpretation of his 
motivation is).
Now, Snape has never respected Harry before for his achievements against 
Voldemort, so why should he now?

The change in the equation is that this time Voldmort is back. This time, 
Harry hasn't hindered Voldemort, whether wittingly as over the Stone or 
unconsciously as he did in infancy. Harry has escaped him, he has proved 
himself a wizard worthy of respect and more. But at the same time he has, 
however unwillingly, *aided* Voldemort. He has been the agent of his return, 
doubly so in that by this time Snape must also understand his part in 
allowing Pettigrew to return to him.
In a way, the two of them are in the same boat, both have feelings of guilt 
(for I think Harry realises his part, doesn't he?) for their involvement in 
aiding the Dark Lord.

I think that Snape must now be recognising that perhaps he has underestimated 
Harry, that he hasn't simply been lucky in his previous exploits. He may be 
coming to a recognition that he has been a little err...petty. He may also by 
now know things that Harry doesn't know about his own destiny, things that 
either he (Snape) hasn't been informed of until now, or things he's been 
reluctant to acknowledge. (I'm thinking of prophecy type things, the things 
that Dumbledore seems to be aware of, that he doesn't let Harry in on.)

Harry's perceptions too have changed. He has a lot of questions to ask about 
Snape. He has finally internalised the message Hermione and Hagrid have been 
telling him. It's not surprising he has problems interpreting what Snape's 
thinking: we have the same problem and I think we've given him a lot more 
serious thought than Harry's ever done!

What I find interesting about this encounter is that the two of them 
apparently hold each other's gaze. I think the only time they've probably 
done this before is in a situation of anger. Snape obviously isn't flashing 
(or glittering) a look of pure, unadulterated malice at Harry, nor does he 
immediately look away as one tends to when someone catches you looking at 
them. It's more like a sizing-up. I think both of them are having to do some 
re-assesment of their own and each other's roles in the war to come.

Dazed_sparkling_dreamer talks about the Slytherins:

>Even Dumbledore's speech at the end of PS/SS when he changes the 
>flags.  He could of changed the points before, that would of been 
>sensitive, this wasn't.  He sent a year of slytherins off into the 
>world feeling increadibly bitter.

>Now imagine going through all this as an adolescent.  THe most 
>emotionally screwy and embarrising years of your life and almost hte 
>entire school hates you.  Hell probably a lot of people can remember 
>feeling like this at some point.  Now imagine this for seven years!  
>This would be traumatic anyway but these are also the most ambitous 
>people in the school.  They may well feel that well what is the point 
>in being 'good', staying on the 'light' side.  The light side has 
>rejected them. 

I include this quote here, because it is so similar to my argument for why 
Snape joined the DEs, his experience of school  failed to demonstrate the 
ethical superiority of the Light side, that the results of incidents such as 
the prank came dangerously close to Voldemort's philosophy of the invalidity 
of the concepts of good and evil. 

I originally said,
> It's not so much what the Marauders did that's the problem, as what 
> Dumbledore *didn't* do. I fancy he felt ever so let down by 
> the 'light' side, didn't find justice in the all-wise all-just 
> Dumbledore. . . . What's the point of allying yourself with 
> goodness if evil goes unpunished? Is there any difference between 
> the two sides? Perhaps not. 

Eloise




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jferer at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  9 17:31:47 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:31:47 -0000
Subject: [SHIP] In Defense of Ginny
In-Reply-To: <00d701c1dfd4$48eae920$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a8v8i3+77em@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37625

Forward hobbles one of the elderly citizens of the village, who will 
relate a story of the Old Shipping Wars, which took place when the 
members of this group were typing their missives on IBM 1401's on 
punched paper tape.  And no, he never exaggerates....

It's impossible to say that Ginny is "wrong" for Harry, because she's 
too much of a blank slate at this point. We don't know her much, but 
we can predict Ginny would be the one who would devote herself totally 
to him, who would always do anything to comfort and soothe him. She 
would also bring him into the Weasleys, where Harry found family love 
for the first time in his conscious life; this factor is (or was) 
known, sometimes derisively, as the One Big Happy Weaseley Family, or 
OBHWF. Some of our brothers and sisters here think the whole OBHWF 
idea is too saccharine for words.

OTOH, Hermione with Harry would be who she is now, keeping her own 
counsel about what he needs, including challenging him to get back on 
his feet after the trials he goes through. Hers would be the kind of 
love that has both head and heart in it, and she wouldn't hesitate to 
get tough with him if that's what she thought he needs.  However, she 
seems destined for Ron, at least in the short term, which is one of 
the mismatches of all time.

BTW, you are absolutely right, IMO, that Hagrid is the most emotional 
person Harry knows, and a model of male caring.




From pennylin at swbell.net  Tue Apr  9 18:00:42 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 13:00:42 -0500
Subject: Ginny's "bond" with Voldie
References: <a8v1jt+rpts@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <026f01c1dff0$772bf880$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37627

Hi all --

I wrote:

>>I'm sorry, but I always wonder about this whenever it gets 
raised because,well, Ginny was *unconscious* during the entire 
battle between Harry & Riddle in the Chamber. She says that the 
last thing she remembers before losing consciousness was 
Riddle coming out of the diary. So, I guess I'm always perplexed 
about this so-called "bond" between them. Yes, she wrote in a 
diary& maintained correspondence with him over a period of 
months. But, when he materialized, she faded to black. 
:::shrugs::: <<

Pippin asked in an astonished tone:

<<<<<<::boggles:: Did I miss the irony markers? Is the mother of this 
list, *this list*, saying that she can't imagine that a person might 
get a little too caught up in the passtime of sending messages 
back and forth? To the point of emotional dependency ? <veg>>>>>>>>>>

Oh, no, wait!  I don't dispute that Ginny was very emotionally dependent on the diary & her relationship with "Tom."  But, I've failed to see how this is a direct parallel to the sorts of encounters that Harry has had with Voldemort (other than the passive encounter he had with Voldy at 15 mths).  Which leads to:


Pippin: <<<<<<<<<And *our* list isn't even magical. Riddle could have enticed Ginny 
to sample his  memories, too. Imagine eavesdropping on stuffy Professor McGonagall as a teenager, not to mention Binns alive 
and kicking (possibly), Hogsmeade, The Forbidden Forest,etc. I'd bet Ginny got to see a lot of Riddlevision.  They wouldn't 
have been able to interact during the memory, but afterwards?>>>>>>>>>>>

Ah, I see.  I've not really considered that Ginny actually met Tom Riddle in memory form.  That's a new twist definitely.  But, is there canon to back it up?  <g>  From what Riddle told Harry in the Chamber (unreliable though he may be), Ginny had been writing to him all school year, and he (Riddle) had been listening to all her silly little woes & troubles.  He doesn't indicate in any way that she showed Ginny any of his memories.  He says he let her in on some of his secrets, but then the next bit is about how she wrote the threatening messages, killed roosters & set the Basilisk on the other students.  I've always supposed that it was *those* secrets that he was referring to.  Harry certainly remembers it when he took a trip into Riddle's memory, so is there any reason to suggest that Ginny wouldn't likewise have remembered such an experience?  If so, wouldn't she have been even *more* suspect of the diary and of Tom?  I don't know.  It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure I can recall any canon support for it.  

As far though as comparing Ginny's unconscious state during the CoS scene with any of Harry's 3 encounters with Voldemort, I'm afraid the comparison just doesn't do anything for me still.  I still think the "special bond" between Harry & Ginny due to their shared experience in the Chamber is a bit of a stretch.  She doesn't remember any of it after all.  Now, in fairness, I do suppose her descent into the Chamber was a horrifying ordeal, but again, Tom wasn't present (and neither was Harry).  One does wonder how she managed to get there.  And did the sink just close up again I suppose?  Did Ginny cause it to close behind her and how was Tom guiding her?  Was she writing in the diary for instructions as she went along?  Hmmm... am growing more & more confused.  

Penny 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Tue Apr  9 18:18:46 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 04:18:46 +1000
Subject: Grey Lady, lifespan & mixed marriage, acronyms (reformatted)
Message-ID: <003a01c1dff2$fe142fa0$5b31c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37628

Petra:
>The Grey Lady's costume is definitely not of the time period
 befitting a woman who could have given birth to Tom Riddle,
 Jr. near the beginning of the last century. <
 
OK all you history buffs out there who saw You-Know-What, what era clothing *was* she wearing?
 
Ameko:
> She might not have been old enough to be Tom's mother but her costume may fit just the right time period.  If SS/PS takes place in 1991 and Dumbledore is 150 years old, he was born circa 1841.  He may have married as early as age 20, making the wedding sometime in 1860. <
 
Hmmmm.  A bit of Dumbledore shipping, eh?  Here's an idea to toss into the pot... maybe Dumbledore's sock-knitting wife was a Muggle, and died after living a Muggle lifespan, and Voldemort's "Muggle-loving fools" slur was in fact literally true.  As for the Grey business, well, by wizard standards she went grey very young, especially considering her husband was still auburn at 100...
 
Which brings me to something I can't remember seeing on-list... what do people think happens with the lifespan difference in Muggle-Wizard marriages?  I'm reminded of the sad scene in "The Rats of NIMH" when the genetically enhanced mouse realised that his wife would grow old and die long before him, because she'd never had the shots for increasing her lifespan.
 
Will Seamus' dad be tragically bereaved only halfway through his life?  Are there 80yo mixed couples out there where the muggle spouse is stooping and feeble and the wizard has to nurse him/her to what wizards would see as an early grave?  Alternatively, does marrying a wizard give you access to a wizard lifespan somehow?  (long life potion?)  If so, there's another good reason to keep the Wizarding world secret... all the single ones would be killed in the marrigeable magic-digging Muggle stampede!  Just think: the wounds and ills of all your family could be healed in minutes, you could keep your house totally safe from burglars by making it unplottable, get rid of unwanted guests, get your spouse to do home repairs and housework with a mere wave of the wand, avoid parking problems by floo or flight by broomstick... 
 
Rohit Puskoor wrote:
> Tabouli, Grey Wolf, there's an acronym challenge for
> ya'... Ginny and Neville proving themselves to be more
> formidable wizards than anyone's given 'em credit for
> so far.
 
Christine Peterson said:
> *jumps up and waves* I second that challenge! ^_^
 
Captain Tabouli's captor is a cruel creature.  Though he does not provide her with food or water, he somehow manages to deliver regular requests for acronyms from the public.  Fortunately, the Captain has secret supplies stashed in her cabin wardrobe, and a cupboard under the sink in which she has secreted a hydroponic tomato crop, which she had hoped to combine with a couple of the garlic bulbs grown in the vampire theories wing to make pasta sauce.
 
For want of anything better to do in her incarceration, she switches on the acronym generator and leafs idly through the requests. A small, impudent slip of paper flutters to the ground.  She picks it up and then stiffens in horror.  The situation is even worse than she feared.  There is a mutiny on board!  In her absence, that upstart Grey Wolf (analogous to the Grey Lady?) is attempting to usurp TAGS (Tabouli's Acronym Generation Service) with his own, homegrown acronyms!  This shall not be bourne!
 
As she reads the fruit of the Grey paws, however, her heart sinks like an anchor.  His efforts are indeed impressive, especially considering that he hails from distant climes where other tongues prevail.  Is TAGS doomed?  Will the acronyms of Theory Bay, once issued almost exclusively with TAGS attached now bear only the pawprint of the Wolf?
 
Grey Wolf:
G.A.N.G.S. (Ginny And Neville: Great Sorcerers)
or better yet
 
G.A.N.G. W.A.R.S. (Ginny And Neville, Great Wizards, Always Remain 
Secretive)
 
or best:
G.A.N.G. W.A.R. U.P.H.E.A.V.A.L.S. (Ginny And Neville, Great Wizards, 
Always Remain Undercover Protecting Harry's Exploits, Although Visibly Are Largely Squibs).
 
Captain Tabouli sternly reminds herself that she is known for her warm, inclusive spirit, and should always on the lookout for new and talented crew.  Besides which, perhaps the lure of a new look TAGWATCH (Tabouli And Grey Wolf's Acronym Tempering Company Headquarters) might tempt Grey Wolf to set her free...
 
jc:
> U.G.A.N.D.A - Underappreciated Ginny And Neville Develop Amazingly
 

As she is slotting Grey Wolf's acronyms into her recruitment files, she catches sight of another high quality acronym, sketched out on the back, but someone whose identity is obscure behind the mysterious initials jc.

 

Sweating slightly, she feeds the recent request into the MAGI machine (which could even be relabelled the MAGIC machine: Magnificent Acronym Generating Intelligent Computer), willing it to come up with something which truly reveals bumbling Neville and innocent Ginny to be:

 

N.A.G.I.N.I.'S. B.A.N.E.  (Neville And Ginny's Incredible Native Intelligence Simmers Behind A Naive Exterior)

 

...whose dramatic development in magical powers could well arise due to Hagrid's decision to replace his usual crops with...

 

O.R.G.A.N.I.C. V.E.G.E.T.A.B.L.E.S. (Ordinarily Renounced Ginny And Neville Improve, Curbing Voldemort's Evil Growth, Eventually Transforming And Becoming Laudably Effective Sorcerors)

 

Of course, as all good Flying Hedgehogs know, apparently vulnerable, innocent and incompetent characters should be watched with deep suspicion, as evidenced by Quirrell and Scabbers.

 

Was Ginny *really* Tom Riddle's unwitting accomplice?  Is her crush on Harry just an excuse for keeping a close watch on him?  Did Neville *really* just absent-mindedly leave that list of passwords lying around, or did he give it to Crookshanks on the sly, wrongly imagining that he was aiding the forces of Evil?  Could the Death Eaters who tortured Neville's parents *really* have resisted the temptation to twist his toddling torso onto Sinister Streets?  Does Snape torture Neville because he senses Foul Forces fuming behind his freckled facade?  As for Trevor, Neville's fans would do well to consider the dark doctrine of TOADKEEPER (The Odious Amphibian: Death-eater Knavishly Executing Espionage, Pursuing Evil Revenge), and the possibility that Neville is not the hapless victim of his treacherous toad(y), but an active and corrupt collaborator in his wicked warty ways, keeping an evil eye on Harry and then stealthily sending Trevor to Voldemort with news of his progress in Defence Against the Dark Arts while listening to the malevolent music of:

 

W.O.L.F.G.A.N.G. A.M.A.D.E.U.S. M.O.Z.A.R.T. ("We Only *Look* Feeble!" Neville And Ginny's Glorious Acting Neutralises Genuine Amoral Mission As Death-Eater Undercover Spies, Operating Zealously Against Redoutable Trio)

 

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Tue Apr  9 18:54:46 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 04:54:46 +1000
Subject: Evil Ginny & Neville: MOZART revisited...
Message-ID: <000d01c1dff8$05c58a00$e20ddccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37629

I'm really not having much luck with this post, am I?  Mixed two proto-acronyms into my Mozart effort.  Last try:

W.O.L.F.G.A.N.G. A.M.A.D.E.U.S. M.O.Z.A.R.T.
("We Only Look Feeble!" Ginny And Neville's Gormless Act Masks Amoral Death-Eating Undercover Spying Mission, Operating Zealously Against Redoubtable Trio)

(checks it carefully).  Good.  All ye doubters, go back through the books and check each appearance of Ginny and Neville... Ginny's desperation to lay eyes on Harry the minute she hears his name at the station (your mission is to watch Harry Potter)... Neville's toad disappearing and reappearing (no doubt having delivered his dark tidings to the Death Eaters)... Ginny, an inexperienced spy, blushing violently every time her victim comes into view... that terribly suspicious diary incident... Neville trying to stop the Trio going to get Voldemort, fiendishly hidden behind a pretence of caring about points for Gryffindor...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Edblanning at aol.com  Tue Apr  9 19:58:27 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:58:27 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grey Lady, lifespan & mixed marriage, acronyms (reformatt...
Message-ID: <18.1d44f0a2.29e4a1e3@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37630

Tabouli:
> Will Seamus' dad be tragically bereaved only halfway through his life?  Are 
> there 80yo mixed couples out there where the muggle spouse is stooping and 
> feeble and the wizard has to nurse him/her to what wizards would see as an 
> early grave?  Alternatively, does marrying a wizard give you access to a 
> wizard lifespan somehow?  (long life potion?)  If so, there's another good 
> reason to keep the Wizarding world secret... all the single ones would be 
> killed in the marrigeable magic-digging Muggle stampede!  Just think: the 
> wounds and ills of all your family could be healed in minutes, you could 
> keep your house totally safe from burglars by making it unplottable, get 
> rid of unwanted guests, get your spouse to do home repairs and housework 
> with a mere wave of the wand, avoid parking problems by floo or flight by 
> broomstick... 

Yes, exactly. The others are by implication the reasons given (by Hagrid, I 
think) for why wizards choose to keep magic secret from Muggles.

But this is a question that has intrigued me, too. I have a memory that JKR 
said (I think in connection with Dumbledor'es age) that wizard longevity was 
something with which Harry was not yet acquainted. What *makes* a wizard live 
longer anyway. How is the trait transmitted? Is it something which just goes 
along with having magic powers? I'm wondering if, for instance half-bloods or 
Muggle-borns share it or whether it only applies to pure-bloods. Or is it, 
for wizards too, the result of the use of some kind of potion or charm? 

This is another of the questions touched on by Pullman. His witches live for 
hundreds of years and the one in the story doesn't want to see the human with 
whom she had had a relationship in his youth as she knows he will be ashamed 
of his old age. (I'm sorry, I can't use the names, as we're listening to it 
on tape and I haven't got the foggiest how they're spelled).

It must be simply awful if you can't stop your spouse from aging. It's bad 
enough seeing one's parents become decrepit, let alone your lover.

Eloise, who has just been to witness what she could of the funeral of one of 
the most remarkable old women ever to grace the Earth.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr  9 19:55:19 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:55:19 -0000
Subject: FILK: Owl Post Calling
Message-ID: <a8vgv7+2f15@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37631

Owl Post Calling
To the tune of "London Calling" by the Clash

Scene: Vernon Dursley watches with dread as an endless succession of
owls delivers an endless succession of letters to #4 Privet Drive. 
The dread only grows when the owls start singing to an ominous
punk-rock beat.

OWLS:
Owl Post calling with important news
For that unwanted nephew whom you abuse
Owl Post calling, by day and by night
Let him out of the cupboard, start treating him right
Owl Post calling, don't bother to hide
His magical heritage won't be denied
Owl Post calling, don't try to complain
Just get his ass on that big red train

VERNON
The letters keep coming, they litter the floor
Slipping through windows, sliding under the door
They make demands, but I refuse to care
That runt will stay put underneath the stairs

On further consideration, Vernon decides to board up the house and
move Harry to Dudley's spare bedroom.  The Owl Post, however, is not
so easily put off.

OWLS
Owl Post calling, we're all gonna zoom
On that kid you've got hid in your smallest room
Owl Post calling, we're in hot pursuit
Your efforts at hiding will bear no fruit
Owl Post calling, so be afraid
We're gonna keep coming till delivery's made
Owl Post calling, we're filling the skies
With swooping wide wings and big yellowy eyes

VERNON
The owls are still coming, they're driving me mad
They frighten the neighbors, they make us look bad
An avian terror invading our lives
Magic has come to Number 4 Privet Drive

Vernon bundles his family into the car and attempts to escape, only to
discover that the Owl Post will find you *anywhere*.

OWLS
Owl Post calling with a message of note
For that boy you've got stashed in a cabin remote
Owl Post calling, we ain't gonna stop
So you might as well give up!

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  9 19:50:30 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:50:30 -0000
Subject: Ginny  and Riddle
In-Reply-To: <a8v6hk+d6pu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8vgm6+vk70@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37632

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> Penny:
> > I'm sorry, but I always wonder about this whenever it gets 
> > raised because, well, Ginny was *unconscious* during the entire 
> > battle between Harry & Riddle in the Chamber.  She says that the 
> > last thing she remembers before losing consciousness was Riddle 
> > coming out of the diary.  So, I guess I'm always perplexed about 
> > this so-called "bond" between them.  
 
I think there is a bond because of several things.  While she was 
indeed unconscious during Harry's confrontation with Tom and the 
basilisk, they talked afterward and he was very nice and reassuring 
to her.  He treated her like an equal, after previously thinking of 
her as a little girl (but then, we know from Harry and Dobby's 
relationship that he doesn't generally talk down to people).  
Secondly, he did save her life.  Neither of these things indicates 
that they will be boyfriend and girlfriend necessarily, but it does 
imply that they may be friend and friend, especially as JKR has 
hinted at more Ginny involvement in the future.

They also share a bond because each of them was taken in by the 
diary.  Each of them was fooled and used by Tom Riddle.  With Ginny 
it happened over a longer period of time, but Harry also completely 
believed everything Riddle told him, including the part about Hagrid 
being the one responsible for the chamber being opened the first 
time.  He actually managed to get Harry to doubt one of his best 
friends--and usually, whenever anyone insults or points an 
accusatory finger at Hagrid, his first impulse is to defend him 
(Harry and Draco in Madam Malkin's is the first time).  But this 
didn't happen--he just assumed that seeing was believing, and he 
believed that he saw a guilty younger Hagrid in the diary.  Riddle 
was very sneaky and skilled about what he let Harry see.

Harry was completely shocked when he realized what Tom's plan was.  
He never suspected any foul play coming from that quarter.  Riddle's 
skill at manipulation is clearly very great.  And for all of those 
people who like the idea of Tom/Ginny--I do think she may have had a 
little crush on the older boy who listened so patiently (she 
thought) to her babblings in part because he reminded her of Harry 
(I have a theory that he also allowed her to enter the diary as 
Harry did, so she was able to see him).  Perhaps her getting over 
Tom (as I think she has by the end of CoS) will also lead to her 
getting over Harry as she learns to see each of them for who they 
are, instead of larger than life.

Of course, I think that Viktor Krum is another Harry doppelganger 
and that is one reason why Hermione went out with him (although it 
was all subconscious), but that's another post...

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb




From cmf_usc at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  9 21:41:01 2002
From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 21:41:01 -0000
Subject: Ginny /Riddle/Harry
In-Reply-To: <a8vgm6+vk70@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a8vn5d+3b4e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37633

Barb wrote about Harry & Ginny:

> They also share a bond because each of them was taken in by the 
> diary.  Each of them was fooled and used by Tom Riddle.  With Ginny 
> it happened over a longer period of time, but Harry also completely 
> believed everything Riddle told him, < snip>

Agree totally.  And here are a few more bonds, from a dedicated non-
shipper:

1.  That sinking feeling of being connected to the latest greatest 
Evil Overlord.  Harry has this *bad* in CoS, and Dumbledore explains 
away the Parselmouth & Sorting-Hat-Slytherin-thing by saying V 
tranferred some powers to Harry.  (Me, I don't totally buy that, but 
then I'm waiting for my Flying Hedgehog badge.)  Harry seems to take 
this explanation pretty well at the time, but I imagine it can't feel 
*good*, and I think it's liable to come up again.  Now, Ginny in CoS 
is very connected to V, and I know others have speculated that she 
may now have some sort of evil seed in her soul (or she may just 
worry about this possiblity).

2.  Guilt.  Harry's got it about Cedric, and Wormtail, and V using 
his blood; and probably about his parents too.  Ginny's probably got 
some about Petrifying folks and nearly getting Harry killed.

I *don't* think this necessarily means that they are soulmates, but H 
& G could have some meaningful conversations.  Harry needs to have 
the guilt one with someone I think, although Sirius would probably do 
as well as Ginny (or better) for that.

And Barb also wrote:

> Of course, I think that Viktor Krum is another Harry doppelganger 
> and that is one reason why Hermione went out with him (although it 
> was all subconscious), but that's another post...

I was thinking this just the other day!  Both short, dark, skinny, 
good at Quidditch, famous... hmm.. maybe the H/H people are on to 
something...

Caroline




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Apr  9 22:06:07 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:06:07 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil Ginny & Neville? G/N Ship and apology
References: <000d01c1dff8$05c58a00$e20ddccb@price>
Message-ID: <018701c1e012$bfddc5a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 37634

Tabouli said:
>All ye doubters, go back through the books and check 
>each appearance of Ginny and Neville... Ginny's 
>desperation to lay eyes on Harry the minute she hears 
>his name at the station (your mission is to watch 
>Harry Potter)... Neville's toad disappearing and 
>reappearing (no doubt having delivered his dark 
>tidings to the Death Eaters)... Ginny, an 
>inexperienced spy, blushing violently every time her 
>victim comes into view... that terribly suspicious 
>diary incident... Neville trying to stop the Trio 
>going to get Voldemort, fiendishly hidden behind a 
>pretence of caring about points for Gryffindor...

I like it! *claps* Except, this was one of those theories we *aren't* supposed to take seriously, isn't it?

I don't think JKR will do it, but it's still yummy to think about, you know?  I mean, you *do* have to watch out for *that* type...they always seem to be not-what-you-think-they-are.  Very tricky, those ones *nods wisely*.

*And* all this Ginny and Neville debate has got me thinking.  Someone awhile ago mentioned that they thought that the ships in this book would most likely turn out H/G and R/H, as these are the only pairs in which one person had shown any interest in the other (discounting Cho and Vicktor type situations which I don't believe are going anywhere), and I was pretty much agreeing.  However, what about Ginny and Neville?  I mean, they do go to the Yule Ball together (although Neville crushes Ginny's toes rather unromantically).  And..well...wouldn't it be so right if they sort of got together and, through the other's help and support, began to outshine everyone else?

Hrm.  I don't know.  One of the complaints people have against H/G is that Ginny will never be on equal footing with Harry (which may or not be true), but with Neville this would not be the case.  And maybe together they could, you know...help eachother up onto better "footing", so to speak. He could help her come out of her shell (as someone she isn't shy about), and she could help him with his schoolwork and bolster his academic morale.*thinks the concept is quite cute, but is unsure of whether it's a likely occurrence*

Also, big, humongous apology to Finwitch.  My method of expressing disagreement with your baby-at-Hogwarts theory was quite rude.  I really *am* working on being more sensitive to other people's feelings when debating, but this was one of those times when my inner mauler just jumped out.  A thousand apologies.  Really, I didn't mean to attack you in any way, in fact, I thought I was being a bit facetious. *hangs head* I'm really sorry.

laura 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  9 22:24:56 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 22:24:56 -0000
Subject: Ron & Authority (was Re: Attitudes toward authority, Ron's complex...)
In-Reply-To: <003701c1de59$b5045460$ce34c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a8vpno+e3gj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37635

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
> However, it's interesting that *Ron* is so willing to believe the 
>worst of authority figures like Percy the Prefect and Snape and 
>Lockhart.  After all, his parents seem to be kind and caring, as far 
>as well can see.  Something to do with the losing fight for 
>attention with his older brothers and baby sister?  Perhaps knowing 
>that adults are fallible and not always trustworthy through watching 
>the foibles of adult older brothers?

I guess I always assumed that (although this might make Percy seem 
even stranger) his parents taught him that authority is not to be 
trusted without question.  I would think that Arthur and Molly, 
having lived through Voldemort's reign of terror and knowing the 
people who were sucked into his web and the respected positions they 
had held, would consider it wise to prepare their children to try to 
discern for themselves.  

They're the types of people who find it only fair to tell Harry when 
Black is after him, and who clearly talk enough about the situation 
for Ron to know that the Malfoys are not trustworthy even though the 
wizarding world in general seems to hold them in high esteem.  

>From the ways that the other Weasley siblings behave, only Percy 
would seem to contradict this, and he is at odds with the rest of the 
family in so many other areas that I don't think it discounts the 
possibility entirely.  Look at Ginny - when she finally decided to 
try to get outside help with the Riddle situation in CoS, she didn't 
go to an authority figure, she went to her brothers.  Fred and George 
clearly aren't in awe of those in authority, and from Bill's and 
Charlie's career choices, they don't strike me as the most 
heirarchically-minded people either.

kimberly




From mercia at ireland.com  Tue Apr  9 23:09:30 2002
From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 23:09:30 -0000
Subject: Snape - A goodie and nasty with it!
Message-ID: <a8vsba+m6l4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37636

I have greatly enjoyed many of the comments on Snape on this list 
and the (occasionally) wild speculations about his 
nature/background/motivation - sorry though, not buying any 
LOLLIPOPS today -  but there is one apsect of Snape above all others 
that still intrigues me.

I find it fascinating that JKR presents us with someone who, as we 
discover in book 4, is really one of the good guys (at least as far 
as his actions go and assuming that Dumbledore is not ever so evil) 
but who remains basically a nasty piece of work. His instincts, as 
many on this list have pointed out, are more in tune with his former 
DE colleagues than with the kindness and consideration practised by 
Dumbledore, Lupin, Molly et al. Even by the end of GoF there is for 
me no sense that his behaviour will be any different to Harry and 
co. He can be cruel, vindictive, petty, irrational, unfair and 
downright unpleasant yet he is also constantly in fact acting to 
protect and advance the good and he clearly has great courage and 
determination.

This seems to me to be moral sophistication of a high order 
especially in a 'children's' book. I love it when black and white 
assumptions are undermined like this. People can be on the right 
side and be thoroughly unpleasant with it. We don't and can't always 
like those who are doing the right thing and are on our side. 

It reminds a bit of Peter Schaeffer's play 'Amadeus'. When I first 
saw it years ago in London some people behind me were deeply 
scandalised by the portrait of Mozart. I heard them discussing it at 
the interval after which they left and didn't come back. They 
couldn't handle a picture of a musical genius as a revolting little 
creep with a purile and smutty sense of humour. Yet that is the 
whole point of the play. That into this very unworthy vessel God had 
poured total inspiration, while poor old Salieri who wanted to offer 
his talents to the glory of God plodded through life with a very 
mediocre talent and with never a spark of inspiration. Very unfair 
but very true to life. Snape for me carries something of the same 
complexity. 

Mercia  




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Apr  9 23:50:05 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 23:50:05 -0000
Subject: Ginny's "bond" with Voldie
In-Reply-To: <026f01c1dff0$772bf880$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a8vund+mf6a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37637

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> 
wrote:

>>>> Ah, I see.  I've not really considered that Ginny actually met 
Tom Riddle in memory form.  That's a new twist definitely.  But, is 
there canon to back it up?  <g> <<<<

    There's nothing to deny it, IMO. Perhaps Tom wasn't strong 
enough at first to draw Ginny into the diary. He begins, as he 
says, by exchanging messages, but he obviously had the power 
by the time Harry got his hands on the diary. As Tom managed to 
hoodwink everyone at Hogwarts during the first spate of attacks, 
I'm sure he had plenty of  memories that would soothe rather 
arouse Ginny's suspicions.

Penny again:
>>>> As far though as comparing Ginny's unconscious state 
during the CoS scene with any of Harry's 3 encounters with 
Voldemort, I'm afraid the comparison just doesn't do anything for 
me still.<<<<

But what about her struggles as Tom forced her to come to the 
chamber? Why would you say "Tom wasn't present"? Surely he 
was there in the most horrible immediate way, trying to take 
possession of her soul. Tom says she struggled and cried and 
became very boring...I'm sure that's just the way Voldemort 
would have described Harry's efforts to resist the Imperius and 
Cruciatus curses at the graveyard.

Penny pondered:
  >>>>One does wonder how she managed to get there.  And did 
the sink just close up again I suppose?  Did Ginny cause it to 
close behind her and how was Tom guiding her?  Was she 
writing in the diary for instructions as she went along?  Hmmm... 
am growing more & more confused.  <<<<
> 
It is vague, isn't it? I assume that she had to have the diary with 
her, but that Tom could get inside her head for brief periods, 
sharing her soul, more or less the way he did with Quirrell, only 
at intervals. She must have been down to the Chamber many 
times before, since the Basilisk only comes when it is called. 
She may not remember the other times, but it seems as if Tom 
didn't wipe her memories this time, since she remembered him 
coming out. He wouldn't have bothered if he meant her to die.

So far, Ginny and Harry are the only ones of their generation to 
fight Voldemort. I don't go with the seed of evil theory for either 
Harry or Ginny.  OTOH, Harry's careful to keep his connections 
with Voldemort secret, and I'm sure Ginny is also fearful of how 
people would react to her if they knew. It would be awfully 
comforting, IMO, to realize there was someone else you could 
share this burden with. I don't know if Harry's ever told his friends 
about Dumbledore's idea that  Voldemort put something of 
himself in him. I imagine not, as Hermione would blow it off and 
Ron would be terrified.

Pippin




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Apr 10 00:34:39 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:34:39 -0000
Subject: Ginny and Neville Forever!
In-Reply-To: <018701c1e012$bfddc5a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a901av+upmo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37638

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
>*And* all this Ginny and Neville debate has got me thinking.  
>Someone awhile ago mentioned that they thought that the ships in this 
>book would most likely turn out H/G and R/H, as these are the only 
pairs in which one person had shown any interest in the other 
(discounting Cho and Vicktor type situations which I don't believe are 
>going anywhere), and I was pretty much agreeing.  However, what about 
Ginny and Neville?  I mean, they do go to the Yule Ball together 
(although Neville crushes Ginny's toes rather unromantically).  
And..well...wouldn't it be so right if they sort of got together and, 
>through the other's help and support, began to outshine everyone 
else?
> 

Yes, a fellow Ginny/Neville shipper. How few there are of us, but how 
we will be envied when JKR actually makes it canon.

Seriously, I believe there's a great likelihood of that actually 
happening. Once upon a time, I was an H/G shipper, then I read GoF, 
and I knew that Neville and Ginny were right for each other, and had a 
hunch JKR knew it too. (I have fights now with my brother who says 
Harry has to marry Ginny, because Ginny looks like Lily, and wouldn't 
it be so cute for history to repeat here.) 

You see, why send them to the ball together at all? They're paired so 
prominently, and such attention is drawn to the moral courage they 
both show in the pairing. Ginny is Neville's second choice, and 
Neville is hers also, but they both go through a lot to get there and 
keep it that way. Neville does not let his first rejection get at him, 
and Ginny refuses to break faith with Neville after getting the 
longed-for invitation from Harry. 

> Hrm.  I don't know.  One of the complaints people have against H/G 
>is that Ginny will never be on equal footing with Harry (which may or 
>not be true), but with Neville this would not be the case.  And maybe 
together they could, you know...help eachother up onto better 
>"footing", so to speak. He could help her come out of her shell (as 
someone she isn't shy about), and she could help him with his 
>schoolwork and bolster his academic morale.*thinks the concept is 
quite cute, but is unsure of whether it's a likely occurrence*
> 

Of course, it's likely. It's going to happen. Ginny and Neville are 
far better linked than Ginny and Harry, anyway. They've both suffered 
badly, without getting back at those who have made them suffer. 
Unconscious Ginny - baby Neville anyone? They both are overlooked. 
Though it may be unfair, I do think Ginny's in too much of an 
idolizing relationship to Harry, and she should come back to earth 
with Neville. And Neville deserves to be happy. He deserves to be the 
permanent DADA teacher, marry Ginny, and live happily ever after, with 
a lot of red-haired kids. Just as long as it's not GEWGAW (Ginny's 
Early Wedding Grows Awfully Weird).

Eileen




From kellybroughton at netscape.net  Wed Apr 10 00:12:22 2002
From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:12:22 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discussion Question #2
Message-ID: <711FFCA5.537E3A2B.B13B89B9@netscape.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37639

>Dazed_sparkling_dreamer talks about the Slytherins:
>
>
>>Now imagine going through all this as an adolescent. THe most 
>>emotionally screwy and embarrising years of your life and almost hte 
>>entire school hates you. Hell probably a lot of people can remember 
>>feeling like this at some point. Now imagine this for seven years! 
>>This would be traumatic anyway but these are also the most ambitous 
>>people in the school. They may well feel that well what is the point 
>>in being 'good', staying on the 'light' side. The light side has 
>>rejected them. 
>
>I include this quote here, because it is so similar to my argument for why 
>Snape joined the DEs, his experience of school failed to demonstrate the 
>ethical superiority of the Light side, that the results of incidents such as 
>the prank came dangerously close to Voldemort's philosophy of the invalidity 
>of the concepts of good and evil. 
>
>I originally said,
>> It's not so much what the Marauders did that's the problem, as what 
>> Dumbledore *didn't* do. I fancy he felt ever so let down by 
>> the 'light' side, didn't find justice in the all-wise all-just 
>> Dumbledore. . . . What's the point of allying yourself with 
>> goodness if evil goes unpunished? Is there any difference between 
>> the two sides? Perhaps not. 
>
>Eloise

I recall it being said that Tom Riddle was a prefect, Head Boy, and quite popular... and he was in Slytherin. When they say popular, I assume they meant he was popular with the whole school, not just Slytherin house.

As for Eloise's "evil going unpunished" statement... notice that's exactly what happened when Riddle framed Hagrid for the Aragog/Basilisk incident. He does something totally evil, and is actually given an award. As far as I know, Dumbledore is the only one who seems to have a better understanding of young Riddle than anyone else at the time, and yet does nothing(?)... simply perhaps because he didn't have the authority to do anything at the time?

-kel




__________________________________________________________________
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 Brwneil at aol.com  Wed Apr 10 00:43:00 2002
From: Brwneil at aol.com (Brwneil at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 20:43:00 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny and Neville Forever!
Message-ID: <10.1d005e22.29e4e494@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37640

In a message dated 4/9/2002 8:36:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
lucky_kari at yahoo.ca writes:


> (I have fights now with my brother who says 
> Harry has to marry Ginny, because Ginny looks like Lily, and wouldn't 
> it be so cute for history to repeat here.) 
> 

Rowlings has given a number of ways history could repeat itself.  Remember, 
Lily was muggle born as is Hermione.

Neil


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From jmmears at prodigy.net  Wed Apr 10 03:47:29 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 03:47:29 -0000
Subject: Hermione/Ron/Krum (was sleeping woman)
In-Reply-To: <00b101c1df7f$404fd960$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a90ckh+k2ht@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37641

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:

> Jo:
> >I've never quite been able to fathom what 
> >Krum was doing in fancying her, though.  Perhaps all those 
fangirls 
> >were just too scary for the athletically brilliant but socially 
> >backward Krum.


Laura wrote: 
> *indulgent smile* Silly.  Because she's brilliant, caring, etc. 
etc.  Plus, I think she's probably got that potential for a sort of 
dignified beauty that only adults notice and other kids totally 
miss -- especially now that her teeth are - erm, normal-sized.  I've 
known alot of girls like this -- all bone-y angles, bushy hair, and 
belligerent mannerisms -- but underneath you can just *tell*.


Me:
Hermione may be brilliant, caring, etc. but how would Krum know any 
of this?  He arrives at Hogwarts at Halloween, and sometime between 
then and the week before Christmas, he invites her to the ball.  
Granted, we only have Harry's point of view, but from the 
conversation we hear between Hermione and Krum at the ball, they 
barely know each other (he doesn't even know how to pronounce her 
name).  Obviously, he had to have had at least one other 
conversation with her when he invited her (unless he wrote her a 
note), but when she and Harry are talking about him in the library 
before the first task (late November), she doesn't seem to have even 
met him.  She's complaining because he's always in the library 
attracting lots of noisy girls who "only like him because he's 
famous" and observes that "He's not even good-looking".  It's pretty 
well implied that he's hanging around the library because of 
Hermione, but she hasn't figured this out yet.  Maybe he just finds 
her attractive, but again with that 4 year age difference (he's 
practically a grown man), I just think it's strange.


> Jo again:
> >Maybe this is why a romantic relationship between Harry and 
Hermione 
> >has always seemed to be so violently *wrong* somehow.  It seems 
that 
> >a mature Harry would not be able to romantically connect with 
such a 
> >maternal/domineering type.  I've never been one to believe that 
> >males *really* want to marry their mothers ;-).


Laura:
> Why does "caring" always equal "maternal" and "intelligent and 
independent" always equal "domineering" when people are referring to 
Hermione? *sighs melodramatically*  It's not that I think she's 
absolutely *perfect*, it's just that with you all calling out 
her "bad" points from the rooftops, I feel like she needs my support.


Me:
Er...you are joking, aren't you?  Hermione gets more support on the 
list than Harry does.  I really do like her, too (overall), but it 
seems that pointing out any flaw at all in her really upsets  
people.  
Of course "caring" doesn't equal maternal and 'intelligent and 
independent" doesn't always equal domineering (what's wrong with 
*maternal* anyway; does everyone hate mothers?), but people can be 
caring without insisting on telling others what to do.  Often the 
most caring thing you can do is just listen to someone, and show 
them enough respect to work through their own problems (unless, of 
course, you are *asked* for your opinion). Hermione hasn't learned 
this yet.  One of my favorite examples of "caring" in GoF is in 
Chapter 10 when Harry tells R/H about his scar hurting again, and 
about his worries about not having heard from Sirius.  Ron suggests 
that Harry join him and his brothers in a game of orchard Quidditch 
and Hermione insists they all *need* to go to bed.  Ron's the one 
who knows what Harry really *needs*, and it turns out to be the best 
thing for him.  I think this episode shows which of Harry's friends 
understands him best, and Harry responds to this by valuing Ron as 
the one he "will miss the most."
I really didn't intend for this to be a "Hermione vs Ron" rant.  I'm 
just frequently puzzled as to why so many readers value Hermione's 
contributions above Ron's, when it seems that JKR shows that they 
are at least of equal value to Harry.
> 

Jo Serenadust




From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Apr 10 07:11:28 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 03:11:28 EDT
Subject: Riddle's popularity/Dumbledore and evil (was re: Dicussion Question #2)
Message-ID: <31.2514fb65.29e53fa0@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37642

Kel:
> I recall it being said that Tom Riddle was a prefect, Head Boy, and quite 
> popular... and he was in Slytherin. When they say popular, I assume they 
> 

I hadn't really picked up on the 'popular'. Do you know where it was said? 
That's interesting isn't it? I'd never really though about the significance 
of Hogwarts having a head boy from Slytherin: we see the Slytherins so much 
from Harry's POV that it seems inconceivable. But no, evidently not.

I am inclined to think that perhaps the main reason for Riddle's popularity 
was precisely the fact that everyone (bar Dumbledore) thought he really had 
rescued the school from the Monster of Slytherin. Add to that the fact that 
he is handsome, has an affable manner and the self-acknowledged ability to 
manipulate people to his own ends and you've got a winning combination. 

He couldn't assure himself a following like Draco, by being 'well' born, 
affluent and showing archetypal Slytherin disdain for all those they consider 
their inferiors. He may be the heir of Slytherin, but when he arrived, he was 
just a poor orphan, with presumably little if any knowledge of magic and the 
ways of wizards. His appeal was much more dangerous, being born out ideology 
and bitterness and presented innocently and insidiously under the guise of 
the perfect Hogwarts student. No wonder he needed an *alter ego*. Only to 
those whom he ensnsred was he Lord Voldemort, to the rest of the school, he 
was the heroic, affable Tom Riddle.

Kel:
> As for Eloise's "evil going unpunished" statement... notice that's exactly 
> what happened when Riddle framed Hagrid for the Aragog/Basilisk incident. 
> He does something totally evil, and is actually given an award. As far as I 
> know, Dumbledore is the only one who seems to have a better understanding 
> of young Riddle than anyone else at the time, and yet does nothing(?)... 
> simply perhaps because he didn't have the authority to do anything at the 
> time?

Yes, it is just the same (only worse), isn't it? Thanks for emphasising my 
point.

That Dumbledore, he's a bit of a worry, isn't he? I'm not completely happy 
drawing religious parallels, but I do keep wondering if this is all part of a 
metaphor for the problem of evil, the 'Why does a just God allow evil to 
exist?' question.
Dumbledore often seems to know but not to act. The Prank and the Aragog/ 
Basilisk incidents are the two prime examples. Is it all just part of the 
'giving people second chances' thing? It seems to go beyond that. I believe 
that Dumbledore is aware of a pre-ordained plan that is working itself out, a 
plan whose bones cannot be changed (something on the level of the Deep 
Magic), but the final outcome of which depends on the actions of the 
participants. Am I making sense?
Drawing an analogy with Narnia, where things are a bit simpler, we have the 
situation where the the Deep Magic exists, but Aslan has the choice as to 
whether to co-operate with it, he could have walked away and left Narnia in 
the grip of the White Witch.

Thus, for example, Dumbledore is not alarmed by Pettigrew's escape. How else 
can we explain his telling Harry that he may be glad he spared his life, if 
there is not something bigger going on? I don't think Dumbledore would weigh 
a life-debt and the subjugation of the wizarding world on the scales and make 
them balance. No, if Harry is to be grateful that Pettigrew owes him a life 
debt, it must be because it is part of a bigger plan which neither he nor we 
yet understand.

Either that, or I add Dumbledore to the growing list of hedgehogs that 
Tabouli keeps lobbing in my direction! 

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 08:29:27 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:29:27 -0000
Subject: Ginny's "bond" with Voldie was Re: Ginny
In-Reply-To: <a8v1jt+rpts@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a90t57+7e3v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37643

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> Penny wrote:
> 
> >>I'm sorry, but I always wonder about this whenever it gets 
> raised because,well, Ginny was *unconscious* during the entire 
> battle between Harry & Riddle in the Chamber. She says that the 
> last thing she remembers before losing consciousness was 
> Riddle coming out of the diary. So, I guess I'm always perplexed 
> about this so-called "bond" between them. 
> 
> Riddle could have enticed Ginny to sample his  memories, too. 
> I'd bet Ginny got to see a lot of Riddlevision.  They wouldn't 
> have been able to interact during the memory, but afterwards? 

For arguments sake, Harry was only one when he faced Voldemort, not 
taking any concious action, but he DEFINITELY has a bond to Vmort.

I'm seeing Ginny's 'bond' as mainly to Harry rather than Vmort. They 
both have faced the Darklord and resisted him (Ginny tried to throw 
the diary away remember!) I see her as a better match to Harry than 
Cho, who although nice and kind (one of the few people that supported 
Harry in GoF) Cho has never faced Dark Magic and I don't think she 
wants a boyfriend who would be on the front lines of a magical war. 

Remember that the Gryffindor quality is bravery and whoever stands by 
Harry will need it. Ginyy is definitely full of it (or maybe just I 
am)

PS It is possible that Ginny had a taint of Voldemort upon her after 
the Chamber of Secrets, but I'm sure Dumbledore and McGonagall would 
have checked her head to toe.

Uncmark




From Demeter918 at AOL.com  Wed Apr 10 09:51:17 2002
From: Demeter918 at AOL.com (demeter918)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:51:17 -0000
Subject: Snape - A goodie and nasty with it!
In-Reply-To: <a8vsba+m6l4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a911ul+qpeq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37644

   Told you I didn't talk much. I just read and hoard the 
information in order to sort it all into neat folders where 
I can use it to gleefully type up papers to prove to my 
friends that HP isn't the evil that has suckered my life 
away. *laughs* And in all shades of the word, it hasn't 
*really*. 

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meglet2" <mercia at i...> wrote:
> I have greatly enjoyed many of the comments on Snape on 
this list 
> and the (occasionally) wild speculations about his 
> nature/background/motivation - sorry though, not buying 
any 
> LOLLIPOPS today -  but there is one apsect of Snape above 
all others 
> that still intrigues me.
> 

   And as long as it's Snape, I gobble up eagerly. 


> I find it fascinating that JKR presents us with someone 
who, as we 
> discover in book 4, is really one of the good guys (at 
least as far 
> as his actions go and assuming that Dumbledore is not ever 
so evil) 
> but who remains basically a nasty piece of work. His 
instincts, as 
> many on this list have pointed out, are more in tune with 
his former 
> DE colleagues than with the kindness and consideration 
practised by 
> Dumbledore, Lupin, Molly et al. Even by the end of GoF 
there is for 
> me no sense that his behaviour will be any different to 
Harry and 
> co. He can be cruel, vindictive, petty, irrational, unfair 
and 
> downright unpleasant yet he is also constantly in fact 
acting to 
> protect and advance the good and he clearly has great 
courage and 
> determination.
> 

    Which makes him Snape. JKR (I'm reasonably sure) has 
been quoted to say that he emodies the traits of her worst 
teachers. And it's true. He doesn't teach certain students 
particularly well. (poor Neville comes to mind) He belittles 
students that obviously have skill. (Hermione comes to mind) 
And he constantly favors a certain set of students over 
others. (Slytherin - my babies - come to mind). 

    There's a point where what defines courage is blurred. 
The conventional children's image of courage is the 'hero' 
(almost always a man) rushing off to defend the princess 
from 'evil'. It's the idea of being willing to die for 
what's right, for who or what you love. Courage is 
conventionally defined in the 'Gryffindor' way. 

    However, courage, among the more rationally-minded, can 
be seen in different ways. A woman who dies trying to save a 
friend in a burning building, and a teenager who decides to 
tell an adult about her friends 'eating problem' constitutes 
different kinds of 'courage'. But it's still courage 
nonetheless. 
 
    In the HP world, (which I find extremely fascinating. 
Sort of like medieval world that veered off from our own 
history in the ancient past) 'good' is defined in the 
Gryffindors. 'Evil' is defined in the Slytherins. All the 
Slytherins hitherto described are either an 'unpleasant lot' 
(PS/SS 119) or a nasty bugger (Draco and Harry's second 
meeting on the Hogwarts Train). There's no variation until 
the end, when, ah! Snape was the person trying to *save* 
Harry! 

    There have been arguments that it's purely to pay back 
James Potter, but why would Snape continually protect Harry, 
even as he belittles, taunts, even openly hates the boy? 
Because fundamentally, he and the Death Eaters (DE) are 
different in that way. In many ways, he *is* a Death Eater. 
But in some ways, he is not. And that defines why he's on 
Dumbledore's side rather then Voldemorts. And of course, 
there's much of his past that we're pretty much clueless 
over. Perhaps Rowling will reveal that to us later?


> This seems to me to be moral sophistication of a high 
order 
> especially in a 'children's' book. I love it when black 
and white 
> assumptions are undermined like this. People can be on the 
right 
> side and be thoroughly unpleasant with it. We don't and 
can't always 
> like those who are doing the right thing and are on our 
side. 
> 

    Precisely. Severus Snape is one of the few gray 
characters in an otherwise, black and white book. That's not 
surprising since this is fundamentally meant for children. 
It just happened that many adults got suckered in too. ^__^ 

   These are my own ideas, and none of them have been 
confirmed by Rowling herself. Some tend to forget that the 
color spectrum isn't *just* black and white. There are all 
sorts of other colors in between, and it's rather silly to 
force everyone to adhere to the same sort of morals the 
collective whole believes in. Snape has many faults, more 
then most, but those are *faults*. Everyone has faults, and 
it's sort of lost that perhaps those faults are what makes a 
person different from everyone else. 


> It reminds a bit of Peter Schaeffer's play 'Amadeus'. When 
I first 
> saw it years ago in London some people behind me were 
deeply 
> scandalised by the portrait of Mozart. I heard them 
discussing it at 
> the interval after which they left and didn't come back. 
They 
> couldn't handle a picture of a musical genius as a 
revolting little 
> creep with a purile and smutty sense of humour. Yet that 
is the 
> whole point of the play. That into this very unworthy 
vessel God had 
> poured total inspiration, while poor old Salieri who 
wanted to offer 
> his talents to the glory of God plodded through life with 
a very 
> mediocre talent and with never a spark of inspiration. 
Very unfair 
> but very true to life. Snape for me carries something of 
the same 
> complexity. 
> 
> Mercia

    Makes sense. I remember that movie being shown in our 
music class, and I remember wondering why they would show 
Mozart, this musician my mother loved, in such a light. And 
it's the idea that a person can't expect everyone to be the 
same, regardless of talent or not. 

   It's like putting Harry on this pedestal. He's very near 
and dear to my heart, since I feel a great amount of 
sympathy for him. Many put him into this great role without 
asking him whether he wanted to or not. He never really has 
a choice. He was marked since he was a baby, and therefore, 
many tend to forget that he's just a kid. A regular kid who 
just happens to be part of something irregular. 

   And that's enough for ranting today. Glad to see a fellow 
Snape-fan. ^__^

   Demeter




From jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk  Wed Apr 10 10:04:37 2002
From: jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk (jaymzhuk)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:04:37 -0000
Subject: Snape's task - Azkaban?
Message-ID: <a912nl+j1g7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37645


Is it possible Snape's task at the end of GoF was to go (back?) to 
Azkaban to do something involving either the Dementers or the 
incarcerated DEs?

Would certainly fit with him going pale, and we know LV has his eyes 
on the place.

Just a random thought..







From jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk  Wed Apr 10 10:07:54 2002
From: jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk (jaymzhuk)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:07:54 -0000
Subject: Animagi
Message-ID: <a912tq+2opv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37646


Am I the only one that thinks James Potter got a bit of a short-straw 
by transofmring into a stag?

Apart from the mauraders keeping a werewolf in check, all the other 
instances of animagi we've seen have been for moving around unnoticed 
in the muggle (or wizarding) world - a beetle, a cat, a dog, a rat, a 
bumblebee (speculation <g>)... then a great big stag! Hardly go un-
spotted walking along privet drive, would it?

I know there's the whole majestic thing, but apart from fighting 
prowess it's  hardly a useful shape.






From jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk  Wed Apr 10 11:21:12 2002
From: jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk (jaymzhuk)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:21:12 -0000
Subject: Neville and Ginny
Message-ID: <a91778+epm9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37647

My first anagram (hope it's ok)...

Neville and Ginny get married, and together save the day..

WINNING COUPLE (When Insigificant Neville Nuptially Invites Normal 
Ginny, Combining Otherwise Undervalued Pupils Licks Evil)

Ok, so it's not gonna happen! :)

J.




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 11:40:50 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:40:50 -0000
Subject: Krum the shark (Was Animagi)
In-Reply-To: <a912tq+2opv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a918c2+iba6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37648

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jaymzhuk" <jwh at c...> wrote:
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks James Potter got a bit of a short-
straw 
> by transofmring into a stag?

Definitely not much use for keeping a low profile, is it?  But I bet 
it was great for running around in the Forbidden Forest. :-)

This brings up something I've been wondering recently.  During the 
second task in GoF, Krum attempts to transform into a shark, and 
only partially succeeds.  Was this an attempt at an animagus 
transformation?  If it was, how did Krum know he was going to become 
a shark?  And talk about an inconvenient animagus form -- can't 
transform unless you've got a large body of water handy.  If it 
wasn't animagic, then what was it?  Are there ways to take on an 
animal shape without becoming an animagus?  If so, then what's so 
special about being an animagus?  

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From inviziblegirl at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 10 12:06:06 2002
From: inviziblegirl at hotmail.com (Amber ?)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:06:06 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's your favourite part?
Message-ID: <F177n2m2eyhk8rLqnD500003335@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37649

>From: "Theresa ryan" <theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com>
>
>Hello all,
>    I'm afraid I must ask your for what must be the most clichd question 
>on this newsgroup; what's your favourite part in all of the books? I don't 
>want to see anybody saying 'I love them all, I can't pick just one!' Well, 
>now you have to!

It's gonna sound silly and stupid but the beginning of Book One until Harry 
falls asleep in the Tower his first night. I remember picking up PS/SS out 
of sheer boredom, thinking that it was at least something to read. I know 
that lots of people have said that the first book takes awhile to get into 
but I was hooked from the start. I think it was the mention of a cat looking 
at the map. That made me sit up and think, "Hey, I recognize this". I also 
love the description of Diagon Alley. How absolutely magical!

So yeah. I love the beginning because it gives me a wonderful fuzzy-fluffy 
feeling.

~Amber

********
http://www.the-tabula-rasa.com

I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
- excerpt from "Preludes" by T.S. Eliot



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 12:33:04 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:33:04 -0000
Subject: What's your favourite part?
In-Reply-To: <F177n2m2eyhk8rLqnD500003335@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a91be0+mbcm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37650

My favorite part is the bit in PoA where Snape and Dumbledore share
the Christmas Cracker.  It was the first really human moment for Snape
(the first that stands out in my mind, anyway).  Dumbledore teases
him, and Snape knows perfectly well he's going to be teased, but goes
along anyway.  It was also the first moment that made me think that
Dumbledore and Snape really are friends.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Wed Apr 10 12:42:55 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:42:55 -0000
Subject: Krum the shark (Was Animagi)
In-Reply-To: <a918c2+iba6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91c0f+1afu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37651

Marina wrote: 
> This brings up something I've been wondering recently.  During the 
> second task in GoF, Krum attempts to transform into a shark, and 
> only partially succeeds.  Was this an attempt at an animagus 
> transformation?  If it was, how did Krum know he was going to become 
> a shark? <snip: see bellow> If it 
> wasn't animagic, then what was it?  Are there ways to take on an 
> animal shape without becoming an animagus?  If so, then what's so 
> special about being an animagus?  
> 
> Marina

It was _not_ an animagus transformation. It was "an incomplete form of 
transformation" which, nonetheless, was useful enough for the task. 
However, there are several details that make it different from a 
animagi transformation. For one thing, I doubt you can get the animagi 
transformation "half-wrong" --> if you don't do it right the first 
time, you're probably in deep trouble, and the MoM has to help you out. 
Krum, on the other hand, is able to carry on with just a shark's head. 
On the other hand, once you've managed once an animagi transformation, 
you can change into the animal and back again at will, with no need of 
incantations, while (I'd imagine), Kum needed to do some wand-weaving 
to get the spell ready.

Marina commented:
> And talk about an inconvenient animagus form -- can't 
> transform unless you've got a large body of water handy.

Well, I would love to change into a dolphin and back: it be so much 
more fun going to the beach... Then again, if given a real chance of 
becoming an animagi, I would really love to be a big, grey wolf 
(wouldn't have guesed, did you ;-) ).

Hope that helps

Grey Wolf, who is pruod to join Tabouli in TAGWATCH. 

"Be calmed, oh good captain Tabouli: the grey shadow will follow you no 
more, but will run forward in search of new acronyms to unravel"





From jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk  Wed Apr 10 12:43:50 2002
From: jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk (jaymzhuk)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:43:50 -0000
Subject: Krum the shark (Was Animagi)
In-Reply-To: <a918c2+iba6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91c26+ki2r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37652

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:

> This brings up something I've been wondering recently.  During the 
> second task in GoF, Krum attempts to transform into a shark, and 
> only partially succeeds.  Was this an attempt at an animagus 
> transformation?  If it was, how did Krum know he was going to 
become 
> a shark?  And talk about an inconvenient animagus form -- can't 
> transform unless you've got a large body of water handy.  If it 
> wasn't animagic, then what was it?  Are there ways to take on an 
> animal shape without becoming an animagus?  If so, then what's so 
> special about being an animagus?  

It's always possible Krum is a would-be Shark animagus, but unlikely.

H'mm - well perhaps transfiguration (Krum into Shark) is different 
from an anigami transformation? After all, Draco got turned into a 
Ferret...
Perhaps animagi is an innate ability, where you can transform to and 
from the animal shape at will *without a wand*, and still *retain 
your faculties.* (I believe FB implies that you have the mental 
faculities of the animal you become when transformed - although this 
obviously doesn't apply for animagi)

Actually this could fit - Krum apparantly didn't think of getting a 
stone to cut the ropes (shark-brain?), and perhaps even the partial 
transfiguration was intentional so he'd be able to turn himself back?
If he'd have turned fully into a shark, then he might have just 
forgotten all about the task, and lived in the lake (probably eating 
Harry and co along the way).
I'm sure the judges wouldn't have looked kindly (score wise) upon a 
teacher having to transform him back either.

This might even fit with the Mrs Norris thing - she transfigured 
herself, but now can't change back (and Filch is too embarrassed to 
ask anyone else for help)




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 12:58:34 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:58:34 -0000
Subject: Krum the shark (Was Animagi)
In-Reply-To: <a91c26+ki2r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91ctq+sttv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37653

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jaymzhuk" <jwh at c...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> 
> > This brings up something I've been wondering recently.  During the 
> > second task in GoF, Krum attempts to transform into a shark, and 
> > only partially succeeds.  Was this an attempt at an animagus 
> > transformation?  If it was, how did Krum know he was going to 
> become 
> > a shark?  And talk about an inconvenient animagus form -- can't 
> > transform unless you've got a large body of water handy.  If it 
> > wasn't animagic, then what was it?  Are there ways to take on an 
> > animal shape without becoming an animagus?  If so, then what's so 
> > special about being an animagus?  
> 
> It's always possible Krum is a would-be Shark animagus, but
unlikely.
> 

Given Krum's flying talent, and the way his gawky and awkward self
becomes graceful and confident when he's in the air, I would expect
his animagus for to be a bird of some sort.  An albatross, maybe? 
They're gorgeous flyers, but comically clunky on land.

> H'mm - well perhaps transfiguration (Krum into Shark) is different 
> from an anigami transformation? After all, Draco got turned into a 
> Ferret...
> Perhaps animagi is an innate ability, where you can transform to and 
> from the animal shape at will *without a wand*, and still *retain 
> your faculties.* 

It can definitely be done without a wand, since Sirius did it in
Azkaban.  And it does seem as if the Marauders retained at least some
human intelligence in animagus form.  Not all, though -- one of the
reasons transformation helped Sirius stay sane in Azkaban was that a
dog's thoughts are simpler than a man's, and therefore apparently less
likely to get munched by Dementors.

It does seem, on reflection, that Krum's partial transformation had to
be intentional.  As a full shark, even with human intelligence, he
would've had a great deal of difficulty getting Hermione to the
surface without arms to hold her with.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 12:57:59 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:57:59 -0000
Subject: Krum the shark (Was Animagi)
In-Reply-To: <a91c26+ki2r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91csn+lke0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37654

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jaymzhuk" <jwh at c...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> 
> > This brings up something I've been wondering recently.  During the 
> > second task in GoF, Krum attempts to transform into a shark, and 
> > only partially succeeds.  Was this an attempt at an animagus 
> > transformation?  If it was, how did Krum know he was going to 
> become 
> > a shark?  And talk about an inconvenient animagus form -- can't 
> > transform unless you've got a large body of water handy.  If it 
> > wasn't animagic, then what was it?  Are there ways to take on an 
> > animal shape without becoming an animagus?  If so, then what's so 
> > special about being an animagus?  
> 
> It's always possible Krum is a would-be Shark animagus, but
unlikely.
> 

Given Krum's flying talent, and the way his gawky and awkward self
becomes graceful and confident when he's in the air, I would expect
his animagus for to be a bird of some sort.  An albatross, maybe? 
They're gorgeous flyers, but comically clunky on land.

> H'mm - well perhaps transfiguration (Krum into Shark) is different 
> from an anigami transformation? After all, Draco got turned into a 
> Ferret...
> Perhaps animagi is an innate ability, where you can transform to and 
> from the animal shape at will *without a wand*, and still *retain 
> your faculties.* 

It can definitely be done without a wand, since Sirius did it in
Azkaban.  And it does seem as if the Marauders retained at least some
human intelligence in animagus form.  Not all, though -- one of the
reasons transformation helped Sirius stay sane in Azkaban was that a
dog's thoughts are simpler than a man's, and therefore apparently less
likely to get munched by Dementors.

It does seem, on reflection, that Krum's partial transformation had to
be intentional.  As a full shark, even with human intelligence, he
would've had a great deal of difficulty getting Hermione to the
surface without arms to hold her with.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From shayla at stanford.edu  Wed Apr 10 08:13:48 2002
From: shayla at stanford.edu (shayla)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:13:48 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Riddle's popularity/Dumbledore and
  evil (was re: Dicussion Question #2)
In-Reply-To: <31.2514fb65.29e53fa0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020410010428.00a27670@shayla.pobox.stanford.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 37655

At 03:11 AM 4/10/02 -0400, Eloise wrote:
>That's interesting isn't it? I'd never really though about the significance
>of Hogwarts having a head boy from Slytherin: we see the Slytherins so much
>from Harry's POV that it seems inconceivable. But no, evidently not.>


Well, not really. We have no idea what makes a head boy yet. Percy was one, 
which implies that it takes great dedication to your studies and obedience 
to rules. Slytherins, in their great ambition, could conceivably apply 
themselves quite assiduously to their studies. If Ravenclaws are motivated 
by a yearning for knowledge, then Slytherins are motivated by the 
calculation of a means to an end. Knowledge is power after all.

which is not to say that there aren't other factors to being head boy. All 
we know is that Tom, Bill, James and Percy were. Does the sorting hat pick 
him? the prefects? the staff? dumbledore?

as for Dumbledore himself, I have to disagree with your comment about him 
knowing that Tom Riddle had framed Hagrid. Dumbledore really appears in the 
books to be omniscient, but there is ,
clear evidence that he is not. he did not know about mwpp being animagi
and he didn't realize his own defense against the dark arts teacher was an 
imposter for *months*. no, the man may be very aware of what happens within 
his school, but he does not know everything. he may very well have 
*suspected* that there was something amiss with Tom riddle, but with a 
complete lack of evidence in Hagrid's defense, and probably with the 
opinion of the school board about teaching a half giant anyway, he may have 
had no choice.
shayla





From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 10:37:03 2002
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (ms_petra_pan)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:37:03 -0000
Subject: Fav scenes / Cho [was] Ginny's "bond"
In-Reply-To: <a90t57+7e3v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a914kf+v8cs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37656

--- "Theresa ryan" <theresa_ryan85 at h...> asks:
> what's your favourite part in all of the books?

The Mirror of Erised scenes - gets the waterworks going every time.

--- "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> Cho has never faced Dark Magic and I don't think she 
> wants a boyfriend who would be on the front lines of a magical war. 

That's quite an assertion - care to elaborate?

Petra
a
n
 
       :)   





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Wed Apr 10 14:22:38 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:22:38 -0000
Subject: Krum the shark (Was Animagi)
In-Reply-To: <a91ctq+sttv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91hre+8hoe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37657

Marina wrote:
> It can definitely be done without a wand, since Sirius did it in
> Azkaban.  And it does seem as if the Marauders retained at least some
> human intelligence in animagus form.  Not all, though -- one of the
> reasons transformation helped Sirius stay sane in Azkaban was that a
> dog's thoughts are simpler than a man's, and therefore apparently
> less likely to get munched by Dementors.

Just some canon back-up: it's not actually the dog's thoughts that keep 
him sane, it's Sirius knowledge of being inocent. Transforming into a 
dog allows him to scape, because his feelings are less human (which 
still makes your point valid: animagi do, in fact, loose some humanity 
in the change). That "animality" is quite common in fantasy: several of 
the spells to transform you into an animal come with strings attached: 
you retain your human mind, but your feelings are the animal's feelings 
and desires (you've got the "heart" of the animal and the brains of the 
human, so to speak).

> It does seem, on reflection, that Krum's partial transformation had
> to be intentional.  As a full shark, even with human intelligence, he
> would've had a great deal of difficulty getting Hermione to the
> surface without arms to hold her with.
> 
> Marina

Maybe. Then again, maybe he was just lucky. Faced with the same option, 
I wouldn't go for a half-transformation, since (by what we know), it 
could go terribly wrong. For example, maybe you transform your torso: 
you loose your hands and arms, retain your legs and head, and you 
cannot breathe under the water, since you haven't got gills to filter 
it (which traditionally are in the neck).

You might be implying that Victor deliberatly changed the incantation 
so that it would only affect his head. In that case, he wouldn't have 
lost points for sloppy spelling (which, I think he did, although maybe 
it was just 10 points for being late), and Bagman wouldn't have said 
"incomplete" but "parcial". However, this is very fine linguistics 
(added to the fact that, as always, I'm translating a tranlation, which 
means two potential places for lost information. If someone would 
please post the original:Gof, ch. 26, near the end), so you could be 
right.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 14:29:51 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:29:51 -0000
Subject: Ginny's "bond" with Voldie was Re: Ginny
In-Reply-To: <a90t57+7e3v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91i8v+v8q0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37658

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:

> I'm seeing Ginny's 'bond' as mainly to Harry rather than Vmort. They 
> both have faced the Darklord and resisted him (Ginny tried to throw 
> the diary away remember!) I see her as a better match to Harry than 
> Cho, who although nice and kind (one of the few people that
supported 
> Harry in GoF) Cho has never faced Dark Magic and I don't think she 
> wants a boyfriend who would be on the front lines of a magical war. 

Does anybody *want* a boyfriend on the front lines of a magical war? 
I doubt that any sane teenage girl sits around thinking, "gee, when I
start dating, I hope it's with somebody who stands a good chance of
being killed by a Dark Lord at the earliest opportunity."  (Though,
ironically, that's exactly what Cho got.)  Given Voldemort's methods,
once the war starts *everyone* will be on the front lines.  No one is
safe, as Cedric's fate so graphically proved.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Cho decided she wasn't ready to
take up with The Boy Who Lived after Cedric.  But then again, I
wouldn't be surprised if Ginny decided that her one brush with Dark
Magic was quite enough, thank you, and she really doesn't need a
relationship that will make her a likely target for more of the same.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From dicentra at xmission.com  Wed Apr 10 14:41:44 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:41:44 -0000
Subject: Ginny's "bond" with Voldie
In-Reply-To: <026f01c1dff0$772bf880$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a91iv8+klnk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37659

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
  
> As far though as comparing Ginny's unconscious state during the CoS
scene with any of Harry's 3 encounters with Voldemort, I'm afraid the
comparison just doesn't do anything for me still.  I still think the
"special bond" between Harry & Ginny due to their shared experience in
the Chamber is a bit of a stretch.  She doesn't remember any of it
after all.  Now, in fairness, I do suppose her descent into the
Chamber was a horrifying ordeal, but again, Tom wasn't present (and
neither was Harry).  One does wonder how she managed to get there. 
And did the sink just close up again I suppose?  Did Ginny cause it to
close behind her and how was Tom guiding her?  Was she writing in the
diary for instructions as she went along?  Hmmm... am growing more &
more confused.  
> 

You're right. We don't know how she got there. But I have to imagine
that Tom took control of her the same way he did when he got her to
write messages on the wall and kill roosters. Then once inside the
Chamber, he dumps her off and waits for Harry.

OTOH, she could have arrived there by W.A.R.P.D.R.I.V.E. (Well,
Another Ruddy Plot Device to Raise Interest and Vary Entertainment),
but JKR would never do THAT.

--Dicentra




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 14:47:15 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:47:15 -0000
Subject: Cho/Cedric (was: Fav scenes / Cho [was] Ginny's "bond")
In-Reply-To: <a914kf+v8cs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91j9j+666c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37660

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ms_petra_pan" <ms_petra_pan at y...> wrote:
> --- "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> > Cho has never faced Dark Magic and I don't think she 
> > wants a boyfriend who would be on the front lines of a magical 
> > war. 
> 
> That's quite an assertion - care to elaborate?
 
At the risk of intrusively replying to a question being asked of 
someone else: All one has to consider is Cho's reaction at the 
leaving feast in Goblet of Fire.  Her boyfriend is the first 
casuality since the return of Voldemort and she is clearly 
heartbroken.  While it may be assuming a lot to say she doesn't want 
to be in this position again, it's really not too much of a leap.  
She probably thought she would either be celebrating with a Cedric 
Diggory who won the tournament or commiserating with a Cedric who 
lost--not mourning his death.  She's only about sixteen or 
seventeen.  She grew up in a time when Voldemort wasn't a threat, so 
for her boyfriend's death to be connected to Voldemort is likely 
quite a shock.  

We have no really detailed information about her, but her family was 
not named when the previous victims of Voldemort were listed (like 
Susan Bones' family, for instance).  We have no evidence of prior 
contact between the Chang family and dark magic (she could be Muggle-
born for all we know).  There's no reason to believe she has any 
experience with this or wants it.  She comes off as having led a 
rather sheltered life for some reason (I don't know--maybe that's 
just me).  And while she seems to be a competant Quidditch player 
and she's obviously smart since she's in Ravenclaw, it's still not 
quite the same as having the courage of a Gryffindor.  

The interesting thing about the house stereotypes is that Cedric 
truly seemed to be the best person for the job and probably should 
have won the tournament (if Harry hadn't been thrown in as a wild 
card).  As a hard-working Hufflepuff he worked out how to get his 
egg from the dragon using neither the Conjunctivitis Curse nor 
flying on a broom; he successfully used the bubble-head charm to 
rescue Cho in the lake and he did well in the maze, even keeping on 
after suffering through the Cruciatus Curse.  I think he should get 
a huge number of points for dogged determination.  And think of it--
since Ron and Hermione were helping Harry a bit, don't you think 
that Cho the Ravenclaw might have been helping her boyfriend?  In 
addition to mourning him, she might also have been thinking about 
all of the hard work they'd both put into helping him win the 
tournament, and how he finally succeeded, only to die right after.  
Cedric's Pyrrhic victory is obviously no comfort to her now.  It 
seems highly unlikely she'd want to go through anything remotely 
similar to this again if she could manage to avoid it.

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Wed Apr 10 15:00:02 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:00:02 -0000
Subject: Wizards coming of age
Message-ID: <a91k1i+dmvg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37661

I've just been idling away a bit of time wondering why wizards come 
of age at 17 - not 18.

JKR mirrors the British Muggle world in so many ways - OWLs - 
O'Levels, NEWTs - A'Levels, Apparition Test aged 17 - Driving Test 
aged 17. It therefore seems significant that wizards come of age a 
year earlier than Muggles.

I wonder whether Harry will lose the special protection he gets from 
the Dursleys when he reaches 17. Perhaps they will chuck him out (if 
they haven't already!), even if in their Muggle World they should 
remain Legal Guardians until Harry is 18. I also wonder if Harry will 
finally be told his "back story" when he becomes a fully fledged 
wizard - I suppose that's what you become when you come of age in the 
WW, if you become a "man" in the Muggle one? Also, once wizards reach 
17, are they then allowed to use magic, even if they still go to 
Hogwarts?

Perhaps all the above is wrong, but I am sure that Harry's 17th 
Birthday will be important.

Ali







From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 14:41:26 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:41:26 -0000
Subject: Krum the shark (Was Animagi)
In-Reply-To: <a91hre+8hoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91ium+mlcm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37662

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> Marina wrote:
> > It can definitely be done without a wand, since Sirius did it in
> > Azkaban.  And it does seem as if the Marauders retained at least
some
> > human intelligence in animagus form.  Not all, though -- one of
the
> > reasons transformation helped Sirius stay sane in Azkaban was that
a
> > dog's thoughts are simpler than a man's, and therefore apparently
> > less likely to get munched by Dementors.
> 
> Just some canon back-up: it's not actually the dog's thoughts that
keep 
> him sane, it's Sirius knowledge of being inocent. Transforming into
a 
> dog allows him to scape, because his feelings are less human (which 
> still makes your point valid: animagi do, in fact, loose some
humanity 
> in the change). That "animality" is quite common in fantasy: several
of 
> the spells to transform you into an animal come with strings
attached: 
> you retain your human mind, but your feelings are the animal's
feelings 
> and desires (you've got the "heart" of the animal and the brains of
the 
> human, so to speak).
> 

It does seem to work along those lines in HP, yes.  Under normal
circumstances, a rat and a stag would not voluntarily hang out with a
dog and a wolf, so the Marauders' human minds must've been overriding
their animal instincts.  (Makes me wonder about Lupin, though.  We
know he didn't retain any human intelligence until he started taking
the Wolfsbane potion, yet the wolf was willing to keep company with
three other animals which a normal wolf would either stay away from or
try to eat.  Are werewolf instincts different from regular wolf
instincts?  I suppose they must be, if werewolves are uncontrollably
driven to attack humans.  I seem to recall that normal wolves will
stay away from humans unless they're really starving.)


Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Apr 10 15:28:20 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:28:20 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Riddle's popularity/Dumbledore and evil (was re: Dicu...
Message-ID: <da.166ff84b.29e5b414@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37663


Shayla quotes me (Eloise):

> >That's interesting isn't it? I'd never really though about the significance
> >of Hogwarts having a head boy from Slytherin: we see the Slytherins so much
> >from Harry's POV that it seems inconceivable. But no, evidently not.>

Shayla:

> Well, not really. We have no idea what makes a head boy yet. Percy was one, 
> which implies that it takes great dedication to your studies and obedience 
> to rules. Slytherins, in their great ambition, could conceivably apply 
> themselves quite assiduously to their studies. If Ravenclaws are motivated 
> by a yearning for knowledge, then Slytherins are motivated by the 
> calculation of a means to an end. Knowledge is power after all.
> 
> which is not to say that there aren't other factors to being head boy. All 
> we know is that Tom, Bill, James and Percy were. Does the sorting hat pick 
> 

Agreed. This was merely a preamble to discussing his popularity. I think it 
is highly unlikely though, that an *unpopular* student would be chosen as 
Head Boy. 
I am also intrigued by the way so many people seem to think that academic 
excellence is a requirement for being Head Boy. Evidently one must be able 
enough that the extra duties will not compromise academic studies, but I am 
under the impression that, at least here in the UK, it is personal qualities, 
including responsibility, leadership skills and the ability to work well both 
with staff and fellow students which are the most important factors. <stands 
by for deluge of experiences of rotten Head Boys/ Girls who displayed none of 
the above>

Shayla:
   as for Dumbledore himself, I have to disagree with your comment about him
> knowing that Tom Riddle had framed Hagrid. Dumbledore really appears in the 
> books to be omniscient, but there is ,
> clear evidence that he is not. he did not know about mwpp being animagi
> and he didn't realize his own defense against the dark arts teacher was an 
> imposter for *months*. no, the man may be very aware of what happens within 
> his school, but he does not know everything. he may very well have 
> *suspected* that there was something amiss with Tom riddle, but with a 
> complete lack of evidence in Hagrid's defense, and probably with the 
> opinion of the school board about teaching a half giant anyway, he may have 
> 

Eloise:
I have never suggested that Dumbledore *is * omniscient, merely (in other 
posts) that he gives an impression of near omniscience. However Riddle 
himself thinks that Dumbledore was onto him:

' " Only the Transfiguration teacher, Dumbledore, seemed to think Hagrid was 
innocent. He persuaded Dippet to keep Hagrid and train him as gamekeeper. 
Yes, I think Dumbledore might have guessed. Dumbledore never seemed to like 
me as much as the other teachers did..." ' (CoS, UK, 230).

I think perhaps Kel, who originally raised this point and I are both a bit 
guilty of over-egging the pudding, as clearly, Dumbledore *did* do something: 
he enabled Hagrid to stay at Hogwarts. But the system rewarded Riddle and 
that was the original point. The innocent still got punished and the 
evil-doer still got rewarded.

Take the Aragog/ Basilisk incident out of the equation, if you wish. I still 
find Dumbledore strangely ambiguous as the apparent embodiment of goodness/ 
justice in the series. 

The issue of what he knows is also intriguing. We know that Dumbledore has 
problems containing all his thoughts, hence his use of the pensieve. I have 
long had the feeling that there are some areas in which he does choose to 
employ a near omniscience, and others where he chooses to remain in 
ignorance. The secret doings of the Marauders would be an example of the 
latter.

His ignorance, like the issues of his goodness and justice can also be 
worrying and I wonder if this can be related to my speculations in my last 
post about an awareness of a predestined plan working itself out. Perhaps not 
investigating Crouch/ Moody and Quirrell is an aspect of this. Perhaps he 
only chooses to know that which is both important and which he can (and 
should) do something about. From our perspective not knowing about those two 
was a major omission, but I think his perspective's a whole lot different 
from ours.

Eloise (probably not making any sense to anyone but herself).



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From adatole at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 15:30:34 2002
From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:30:34 -0000
Subject: Krum the shark (Was Animagi)
In-Reply-To: <a91ium+mlcm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91lqq+hple@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37664

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> It does seem to work along those lines in HP, yes.  Under normal
> circumstances, a rat and a stag would not voluntarily hang out with 
a
> dog and a wolf, so the Marauders' human minds must've been 
overriding
> their animal instincts.  (Makes me wonder about Lupin, though.  We
> know he didn't retain any human intelligence until he started taking
> the Wolfsbane potion, yet the wolf was willing to keep company with
> three other animals which a normal wolf would either stay away from 
or
> try to eat.  Are werewolf instincts different from regular wolf
> instincts?  I suppose they must be, if werewolves are uncontrollably
> driven to attack humans.  I seem to recall that normal wolves will
> stay away from humans unless they're really starving.)
> 
Sirius and/or Lupin specifically state in PoA that Lupin was much 
more controllable when with his friends in animal form, plus Sirius 
and James had enough bulk to push the werewolf around and keep him 
out of harms' way. Or out of the way of doing harm. 

Also, to answer a long-past question, Sirius states specifically in 
that same section that as animals they were immune to the effects of 
the werewolf's bite. 

Leon




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 16:11:14 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:11:14 -0000
Subject: Wizards coming of age
In-Reply-To: <a91k1i+dmvg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91o72+vhu0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37665

"alhewison" <Ali at z...> wrote:
> I've just been idling away a bit of time wondering why wizards come 
> of age at 17 - not 18.

<snip>

Is that the case? I'm not so sure. It seems that they come of age 
when leaving Hogwarts, which assuming all first years are already 11, 
means they will leave Hogwarts aged 18, and *that* is when they come 
of age.

Apparation tests at 17 would mean it's part of Hogwarts final year, 
which makes a certain sense.

Then again, I could have all of this upside down....






From gwynyth at drizzle.com  Wed Apr 10 16:13:04 2002
From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Riddle's popularity/Dumbledore and evil (was
 re: Dicu...
In-Reply-To: <da.166ff84b.29e5b414@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204100859160.18023-100000@drizzle.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37666

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 Edblanning at aol.com wrote:

> I am also intrigued by the way so many people seem to think that academic 
> excellence is a requirement for being Head Boy. Evidently one must be able 
> enough that the extra duties will not compromise academic studies, but I am 
> under the impression that, at least here in the UK, it is personal qualities, 
> including responsibility, leadership skills and the ability to work well both 
> with staff and fellow students which are the most important factors. <stands 
> by for deluge of experiences of rotten Head Boys/ Girls who displayed none of 
> the above>

This is an excellent point. Just as a datapoint from a US boarding 
school...

We didn't have a head boy and head girl in the same sense (we had a 
student body president, but they did the same sorts of things that student 
body presidents in public schools do - dealt with student government 
meetings and decisions and such). They didn't have any duties when it came 
to housing and student life, though.

The people who did have the role closest to what we see prefects do (given 
current canon information) were what were called proctors. (I was one my 
senior year in high school). We were responsible for assisting the house 
counsellors with signin to the dorms at night, planning dorm events, 
making sure that the dorm was running fairly smoothly, and making sure no 
one died of alcohol poisoning (a serious concern when I was there, as 
binge drinking was a way some students chose to deal with stress.)

I don't completely recall the selection process (this was nearly 10 years 
ago now) but I think the basic procedure was that we were told who to 
express interest to if we were interested, and then there was a short 
application and interview, mostly to see if we were aware of what was 
going on and our duties. But because we were generally applying to proctor 
in the dorm we were already living in, the house counsellors already knew 
us pretty well to start with, and knew what we were like. 

I'm sure there was some checking of grades (mine were high-average for the 
school, I was averaging a very high B+/low A- equivalent) and asking 
teachers and other people who'd worked with us about it, but in general, 
it was a very low-key process.

We were told very firmly that there were some character choices that would 
mean we would have to give up being a proctor (and move out of our dorm, 
if that happened, as it was a formal policy that you could not continue to 
reside in a dorm where you'd been proctor if you were removed from that 
position or resigned). 

In my dorm, the other proctor was caught at a party where she had been 
drinking, and was removed from being a proctor and moved out, all in the 
space of about a week. (she didn't argue: she knew the consequences if 
she'd gotten caught.)

-Jenett




From ComtessadeChats at cs.com  Wed Apr 10 14:24:28 2002
From: ComtessadeChats at cs.com (ComtessadeChats at cs.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:24:28 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's your favourite part?
Message-ID: <82.19f949c5.29e5a51c@cs.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37667

In a message dated 4/8/02 5:20:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time, 
theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com writes:

> I'm afraid I must ask your for what must be the most clich?d question on 
>  this newsgroup; what's your favourite part in all of the books? I don't 
want 
> 
>  to see anybody saying 'I love them all, I can't pick just one!' Well, now 
>  you have to!

  My favorite part was in book 4 towards the end after everything has 
happened to Harry and Molly hugs him.  All of that emotion is so close to the 
surface ready (and needing) to explode and SOOOO well written!  I wanted to 
hug him and let him cry and cry with him!!!!  Obviously this experience has 
changed him tremendously and I am axious to see how JKR portrays him in book 
5.  I hope she gives hijm an outlet for all that emotion so he can move on 
and accomplish the work to come.  It would be so unrealistic to go on with 
the series and pretend that those events with LV didn't scar him, so I hope 
she writes a lot about how he's doing emotionally.

   ~~~LYSA~~~




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 16:37:30 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:37:30 -0000
Subject: Riddle's popularity/Dumbledore and evil (was re: Dicu...
In-Reply-To: <da.166ff84b.29e5b414@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a91poa+nc9m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37668

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:

> I think perhaps Kel, who originally raised this point and I are both
a bit 
> guilty of over-egging the pudding, as clearly, Dumbledore *did* do
something: 
> he enabled Hagrid to stay at Hogwarts. But the system rewarded
Riddle and 
> that was the original point. The innocent still got punished and the 
> evil-doer still got rewarded.

It looks to me as if Dumbledore did as much as was in his power to do
at the time.  He was just another teacher then, not Headmaster or even
Deputy Headmaster; and it seems that all he had against Tom was a
suspicion, no actual evidence.  So he was not in a position to punish
Tom.  All he could do was minimize the harm done to Hagrid.  In fact,
even if Dumbledore *had* had the power to punish Tom, doing so on a
mere suspicion would've been wrong.  The framing of Hagrid was a
miscarriage of justice, but a system in which a powerful man could
say, "no, don't punish this guy, punish this other guy, because I say
so" would be open to far greater and more frequent injustices, I
think.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Apr 10 16:53:45 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:53:45 -0000
Subject: Wizards coming of age
In-Reply-To: <a91k1i+dmvg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91qmq+38f8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37669

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" <Ali at z...> wrote:
> I've just been idling away a bit of time wondering why wizards 
come  of age at 17 - not 18.
<snip>
? Also, once wizards reach 
> 17, are they then allowed to use magic, even if they still go to 
> Hogwarts?

JKR, from a Barnes and Noble chat:
Michael S. from Illinois: How many more sequels will you be 
writing about Harry Potter?

J K Rowling: There are going to be seven Harrys all together. He 
will be 17 in the final book, which means he will have come of 
age in the Wizarding World. In Book 7, he will become a full 
wizard, and free to use his magic outside school. 

http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?u
serid=69WCMD0H17&mscssid=KKQ9L62NN8XL8GNMADPUP
H764K059XXC&isbn=059035342X&displayonly=authorInterview

(you'll have to cut and paste the link into your browser window)

I suppose she arbitrarily made 17 the date so that 
Harry would be considered a grown up by the last book. If she'd 
thought up ten books, he'd probably come of age at 21.

 I know some people are uneasy about the prospects of early 
marriage and no higher education for Harry because it's not what 
we encourage for young people in our culture. But wizard culture 
is not our culture and I am sure if JKR makes it so she will also 
be able to convey why it is appropriate for Harry's world. 

Since the pool of available jobs and available mates within the 
WW is so much smaller, it seems  to me that wizards could get 
settled in life  much more quickly than we can. Why shouldn't 
they marry young, raise their children, and "live a little" once the 
kids are out of the house? 

Pippin




From philnel at ksu.edu  Wed Apr 10 16:50:57 2002
From: philnel at ksu.edu (Philip Nel)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:50:57 -0500
Subject: Snape - A goodie and nasty with it!
References: <1018440369.2707.6576.m11@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CB46D71.CF501EAB@ksu.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 37670

Dear Potter-ites,

Mercia writes (of Snape):

> He can be cruel, vindictive, petty, irrational, unfair and
> downright unpleasant yet he is also constantly in fact acting to
> protect and advance the good and he clearly has great courage and
> determination.
>
> This seems to me to be moral sophistication of a high order
> especially in a 'children's' book. I love it when black and white
> assumptions are undermined like this. People can be on the right
> side and be thoroughly unpleasant with it. We don't and can't always
> like those who are doing the right thing and are on our side.

To which Demeter replies:

>     Precisely. Severus Snape is one of the few gray
> characters in an otherwise, black and white book. That's not
> surprising since this is fundamentally meant for children.
> It just happened that many adults got suckered in too. ^__^

To which I reply....

Cheers to Mercia!  I find the moral sophistication of the _Potter_ books fascinating, too.  (If you haven't already read them -- and you probably have -- give
Philip Pullman's _His Dark Materials_ trilogy a try: the first book is _Northern Lights_ [UK title] or _The Golden Compass_ [US title].)

But, to Demeter, I would submit an incomplete list of "gray characters": Percy Weasley, Cornelius Fudge, Peter Pettigrew.  And I would add that there are many gray areas in the novels.  For example, does Harry do the right thing in sparing Peter Pettigrew's life at the end of book three?   And does Rowling's treatment of the house-elves in book four endorse slavery (as some reviewers have suggested) or offer a critique of the means by which individuals are enslaved?  I'm not suggesting that we need to answer these questions right now, but I do offer them as examples of the moral sophistication that Mercia  describes.  Indeed, it is this very sophistication that gives HPforGrownups listserv-readers so much to discuss.  And, if I may return for a moment to my list of "gray characters" (Demeter's term), even Ron's prejudice against giants makes him more complicated than he at first may seem.  He's clearly not of the same order of "grayness" as Snape, Percy, Fudge, or Pettigrew, but there
is some ambiguity there.

I'm sure that this subject has been discussed at length on the HPforGrownups listserv, so my apologies for what I'm sure is redundant information: at any rate, when asked if she wrote the books for grown-ups or for children, Rowling has said both.  She says that she wrote them for herself: these are stories that she enjoys reading now and that she would have enjoyed reading when she was eleven.  But, more importantly, all great children's literature works on multiple levels -- it contains pleasures for readers of many ages.

Well, that's all.  I'll get off my soapbox now, and will (gladly) pass it on to another participant.

Happy discussing,

Phil
--
Philip Nel
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Denison Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-0701
U.S.A.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.ksu.edu/english/nelp/
philnel at ksu.edu





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Wed Apr 10 16:55:34 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:55:34 -0000
Subject: Wizards coming of age
In-Reply-To: <a91o72+vhu0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91qq6+m6lv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37671

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "GulPlum" <plumeski at y...> wrote:
> "alhewison" <Ali at z...> wrote:
> > I've just been idling away a bit of time wondering why wizards 
come 
> > of age at 17 - not 18.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Is that the case? I'm not so sure. It seems that they come of age 
> when leaving Hogwarts, which assuming all first years are already 
11, 
> means they will leave Hogwarts aged 18, and *that* is when they 
come 
> of age.
> 
> Apparation tests at 17 would mean it's part of Hogwarts final year, 
> which makes a certain sense.
> 
> Then again, I could have all of this upside down....



On p 166 of GoF (British Hardback edition), Dumbledore says: "Only 
students who are of age - that is to say, seventeen years or 
older...". Also, as many students are 17 in the 6th year, this would 
surely mean that they could then practice their magic in the summer 
holidays before their final year at Hogwarts?

Ali
. 







From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 16:47:17 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:47:17 -0000
Subject: Lupin the werewolf (Was Re: Krum the shark (Was Animagi))
In-Reply-To: <a91lqq+hple@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91qal+6nii@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37672

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" <adatole at y...> wrote:

> Sirius and/or Lupin specifically state in PoA that Lupin was much 
> more controllable when with his friends in animal form, 

Yeah, but the question is, *why*?  The only explanation I can think of
is that werewolves turn into some special magical kind of wolf whose
instincts are different from a regular wolf's.

> Also, to answer a long-past question, Sirius states specifically in 
> that same section that as animals they were immune to the effects of 
> the werewolf's bite. 

They were immune to becoming werewolves themselves, yeah.  But they
wouldn't be immune to having their throats torn out.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com  Wed Apr 10 17:31:52 2002
From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (Terrell Gould)
Date: 10 Apr 2002 10:31:52 -0700
Subject: Krum the shark (Was Animagi)........ with a sprinkle of Hermione
Message-ID: <20020410173152.13531.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37673

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020410/b3233bb0/attachment.ksh>

From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 17:51:13 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:51:13 -0000
Subject: Good vs. Evil in Fantasy /Snape
In-Reply-To: <a911ul+qpeq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91u2h+fec8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37674

I've been thinking about this about goodies and baddies in fantasy, 
in general. We might have a goodie character who continously steals 
with no remorse, i.e. Kenders in Dragonlance. A character who kills 
and is a goodie, remorse or not (Nyissan Sadi in Mallorean Series), 
some asassins in others...

But - so far I can see one thing that unites these fantasy "goodie"-
criminals. When someone does them this bad thing - they don't hold a 
grudge. A killer-"goodie" thinks an attempt on his *own* life is 
just "part of business" or "misunderstanding". A "goodie"-thief who 
has been stolen from either does not get angry or is angry at himself 
for not taking better care of his possessions... In other words, they 
*can* taste their own medicine. Their goodie-friends don't exactly 
approve these habits, though, but a reader *does* get to think that 
they *are* on the good side despite of their bad habits.

Severus Snape doesn't accept his own faults in others, sees these 
faults where he couldn't be more wrong -- he simply breaks the custom 
of a goodie with a very bad habit. We get a hint from AD (who seems 
to be the one who knows and knows he knows) that he *is* a goodie, 
but the character contradicts what *every* other goodie with nasty 
faults has been so far.

This is what puts him under Question. Is he there to show that even 
Dumbledore's judgement of character isn't perfect because even 
Headmasters like AD do err? Or is he there to break the pattern 
of "spy, thief, killer, dirty and foulmouthed but with a good heart" -
 pattern?

-- Finwitch





From trog at wincom.net  Wed Apr 10 18:17:04 2002
From: trog at wincom.net (talondg)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:17:04 -0000
Subject: Riddle's popularity/Dumbledore and evil (was re: Dicu...
In-Reply-To: <da.166ff84b.29e5b414@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a91vj0+1heg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37675

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:

> I think it is highly unlikely though, that an *unpopular* student 
> would be chosen as Head Boy. 

> I am also intrigued by the way so many people seem to think that 
> academic excellence is a requirement for being Head Boy. Evidently 
> one must be able enough that the extra duties will not compromise 
> academic studies, but I am under the impression that, at least here
> in the UK, it is personal qualities, including responsibility, 
> leadership skills and the ability to work well both 
> with staff and fellow students which are the most important factors.

I agree.

If I remember correctly, the members of the HQ Cadre were selected by
nomination by the senior class, and then the General picked from the
list of nominated candidates, with the assistance of both the Academic
wing and the "heads of houses".

I think the General and his staff had the ability to consider and
appoint other candidates not nominated.

It helps to have a certain measure of popularity to secure a
nomination, but I remember competance for the job carrying much more
weight in the decision making process than raw popularity. A few of
the "head boys" in my school were right bastards, but were good
leaders and suited to command.

As an aside, being "head boy" was a poor indicator of future success
in one's career. Quite a few of them had trouble decending from the
heights and starting over again at the bottom of the totum pole.
 
> The issue of what he knows is also intriguing. We know that 
> Dumbledore has problems containing all his thoughts, hence his use 
> of the pensieve. I have long had the feeling that there are some 
> areas in which he does choose to employ a near omniscience, and 
> others where he chooses to remain in ignorance.

An _informed_ ignorence. :)

There's ignorence-as-cluelessness, then there's
ignorence-as-tacit-approval, and then there's
ignorence-as-teaching-skill.

The latter two aren't really ignorence. You _know_ what's going on,
but you pretend otherwise unless you're forced to step in.

The Marauder's activities are to my mind, Dumbldore letting them run
wild a bit so they can learn some life skills - it's more supervised
than they think. Same with Harry's contact with Sirius in GoF.

The rescue of BuckBeak in PoA is ignorence-as-approval.

No, I think Dumbledore knows exactly what is going on around him, bit
only reveals his awareness if it suits a purpose or if he is forced to
by circumstance.

DG 




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Wed Apr 10 19:08:04 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:08:04 -0000
Subject: Good vs. Evil in Fantasy /Snape
In-Reply-To: <a91u2h+fec8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a922ik+hj02@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37676

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> I've been thinking about this about goodies and baddies in fantasy, 
> in general. We might have a goodie character who continously steals 
> with no remorse, i.e. Kenders in Dragonlance. A character who kills 
> and is a goodie, remorse or not (Nyissan Sadi in Mallorean Series), 
> some asassins in others...
> 
> But - so far I can see one thing that unites these fantasy "goodie"-
> criminals. When someone does them this bad thing - they don't hold a 
> grudge. A killer-"goodie" thinks an attempt on his *own* life is 
> just "part of business" or "misunderstanding". A "goodie"-thief who 
> has been stolen from either does not get angry or is angry at himself 
> for not taking better care of his possessions... In other words, they 
> *can* taste their own medicine. Their goodie-friends don't exactly 
> approve these habits, though, but a reader *does* get to think that 
> they *are* on the good side despite of their bad habits.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. It cannot be further from the truth. To 
take your own example, Sadi from the Belgariad/Malloreaon *does* indeed 
hold grudges: a competitor poisons him, and he quickly arranges to have 
him thrown into the river with weights tied to his feet. From the same 
series, Silk steals and assasinates freely, but the moment someone he 
holds dear is assasinated (Bethra), he goes on a killing spree, killing 
15 people, of which only two were directly responsible of the 
assasination (the rest were just extended family of the real 
"baddies"). Haplo, from the Death Gate cycle, takes personally his 
enemies' plans to bring down his master (although he's doing exactly 
the same to them). And so on. Most of the time, the only difference 
between amoral (or inmoral) characters in the good side and the bad 
side is that the first help the good characters and the others don't. 
It's only a matter of using Machiavelism, and fits both sides. When a 
more careful difference is created by the author, it generally lies in 
the fact that the "good" amoral character will not backstab his 
friends, while the "bad" amoral character will have no friends, and is 
busy arranging the circunstances so that he comes into more power 
(normally wading through a pool of competitors's blood).

> Severus Snape doesn't accept his own faults in others, sees these 
> faults where he couldn't be more wrong -- he simply breaks the custom 
> of a goodie with a very bad habit. We get a hint from AD (who seems 
> to be the one who knows and knows he knows) that he *is* a goodie, 
> but the character contradicts what *every* other goodie with nasty 
> faults has been so far.

There really isn't much difference between Haplo and Snape, nor do I 
see Snape as a particularly new idea of ally for the good side. He's 
malevolent, his own objectives are hard to imagine, and the major good 
guy (AD) believes in him: I've seen it before. It's uncommon, 
especially in fantasy, but it's not unheard of.
 
> This is what puts him under Question. Is he there to show that even 
> Dumbledore's judgement of character isn't perfect because even 
> Headmasters like AD do err? Or is he there to break the pattern 
> of "spy, thief, killer, dirty and foulmouthed but with a good heart"
> 
> -- Finwitch

For a guy of this characteristics (except for foulmouthed) which has no 
"good heart" to speak off, take a look at Jarlaxle, from the Dark Elf 
series of R.A. Salvatore. He's not strictly speaking one of the good 
guys, since he's a secondary character, but he's much darker than 
Snape:truly amoral, you cannot turn your back to him. Although the 
pattern you propose exists (specially in Eddings), it's been broken 
before.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

PD: this discussion is going VERY quickly into OT ground, so I'll 
probably cut my own intervention here.





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 20:11:56 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 20:11:56 -0000
Subject: Good vs. Evil in Fantasy /Snape
In-Reply-To: <a922ik+hj02@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a926ac+njd4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37677

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> > I've been thinking about this about goodies and baddies in
fantasy, 
> > in general. We might have a goodie character who continously
steals 
> > with no remorse, i.e. Kenders in Dragonlance. A character who
kills 
> > and is a goodie, remorse or not (Nyissan Sadi in Mallorean
Series), 
> > some asassins in others...
> > 
> > But - so far I can see one thing that unites these fantasy
"goodie"-
> > criminals. When someone does them this bad thing - they don't hold
a 
> > grudge. A killer-"goodie" thinks an attempt on his *own* life is 
> > just "part of business" or "misunderstanding". A "goodie"-thief
who 
> > has been stolen from either does not get angry or is angry at
himself 
> > for not taking better care of his possessions... In other words,
they 
> > *can* taste their own medicine. Their goodie-friends don't exactly 
> > approve these habits, though, but a reader *does* get to think
that 
> > they *are* on the good side despite of their bad habits.
> 
> Sorry, but I have to disagree. It cannot be further from the truth.
To 
> take your own example, Sadi from the Belgariad/Malloreaon *does*
indeed 
> hold grudges: a competitor poisons him, and he quickly arranges to
have 
> him thrown into the river with weights tied to his feet. From the
same 
> series, Silk steals and assasinates freely, but the moment someone
he 
> holds dear is assasinated (Bethra), he goes on a killing spree,
killing 
> 15 people, of which only two were directly responsible of the 
> assasination (the rest were just extended family of the real 
> "baddies"). Haplo, from the Death Gate cycle, takes personally his 
> enemies' plans to bring down his master (although he's doing exactly 
> the same to them). And so on. Most of the time, the only difference 
> between amoral (or inmoral) characters in the good side and the bad 
> side is that the first help the good characters and the others
don't. 
> It's only a matter of using Machiavelism, and fits both sides. When
a 
> more careful difference is created by the author, it generally lies
in 
> the fact that the "good" amoral character will not backstab his 
> friends, while the "bad" amoral character will have no friends, and
is 
> busy arranging the circunstances so that he comes into more power 
> (normally wading through a pool of competitors's blood).
> 
> > Severus Snape doesn't accept his own faults in others, sees these 
> > faults where he couldn't be more wrong -- he simply breaks the
custom 
> > of a goodie with a very bad habit. We get a hint from AD (who
seems 
> > to be the one who knows and knows he knows) that he *is* a goodie, 
> > but the character contradicts what *every* other goodie with nasty 
> > faults has been so far.
> 
> There really isn't much difference between Haplo and Snape, nor do I 
> see Snape as a particularly new idea of ally for the good side. He's 
> malevolent, his own objectives are hard to imagine, and the major
good 
> guy (AD) believes in him: I've seen it before. It's uncommon, 
> especially in fantasy, but it's not unheard of.
>  
> > This is what puts him under Question. Is he there to show that
even 
> > Dumbledore's judgement of character isn't perfect because even 
> > Headmasters like AD do err? Or is he there to break the pattern 
> > of "spy, thief, killer, dirty and foulmouthed but with a good
heart"
> > 
> > -- Finwitch
> 
> For a guy of this characteristics (except for foulmouthed) which has
no 
> "good heart" to speak off, take a look at Jarlaxle, from the Dark
Elf 
> series of R.A. Salvatore. He's not strictly speaking one of the good 
> guys, since he's a secondary character, but he's much darker than 
> Snape:truly amoral, you cannot turn your back to him. Although the 
> pattern you propose exists (specially in Eddings), it's been broken 
> before.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Grey Wolf
> 
> PD: this discussion is going VERY quickly into OT ground, so I'll 
> probably cut my own intervention here.




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 20:23:05 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 20:23:05 -0000
Subject: Ginny (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <008301c1deac$3e723da0$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a926v9+3o9g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37678

There's some bait I just can't resist rising to, I guess...

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
> Hi all --
> 
> Christine asked:
> 
> <<<I've noticed a lot of those who don't support H/G have made 
comments like this, and yet none of them have sufficiently explained 
_why_ they think it's too "sweet."<snip for length>>>>>
> 
> Oh, I'm all for romance being "sweet"!  Yes, definitely.  It's not 
>H/G that I think is too sweet; it's OBHWF (One Big Happy Weasley 
>Family).  Both R/H *and* H/G with the series ending with all the. 
>Weasleys, plus Harry & Hermione, sitting around a dinner table 
>happily celebrating the engagements of R/H and H/G -- that scenario 
>is what I find too sweet.  I think for most people OBHWF is either 
>smile-inducing or makes them want to gag.  I fall into the latter 
>category.  

As I think I might possibly be the person who instigated the debate 
where OBHWF was first coined by it's detractors, I can't help but  
mention that I absolutely despise that title and it's implications.  
I do like R/H and H/G, and I like the idea of them becoming literal 
family, but I've never imagined it as the kind of Hallmark commercial 
those who call it OBHWF seem to imagine.  Maybe I'm thinking Grimm 
while others are thinking Disney.  Sure, I want them to be happy, but 
even if we had the scenario you describe, there would likely be 
devastatingly empty seats at that dinner table, for example.  

By the time any relationships are committed to, I imagine they're all 
going to be older and hopefully wiser, but definitely more scarred.  
They'll have lost people they love and maybe in some cases done 
things they're not proud of.  They'll definitely have seen things 
that most people get to go through their lives ignorant of.  I want 
them to each have someone in the end who's been through things with 
them and who can understand.  

That's why I like R/H & H/G - not as a sweet happy little ending with 
chirping birds and cherubs, but because in the case of R/H, *it is my 
impression* that they are already going down that road, and 
charmingly at that, and more importantly because I anticipate them 
all going through some very trying times together, and often when 
you've been through hell with a group of people, those people are the 
only ones who will ever truly understand the emotional scars you 
carry.  I don't think that after what they'll all have to face, an 
outsider would ever truly fit into the mix, so if all four of them 
survive, I'd like to see them together, but at best I'd see it as 
bittersweet.  

People are probably going to tell me that Ginny is an outsider 
herself as she's not been through everything with the others, but my 
anwer is that the worst is yet to come, and from the end of GoF, we 
know the Weasley family is committed to being a part of Dumbledore's 
plans.  Ginny will be affected by what's to come, even if her family 
does continue to try and shelter her from it, and her experiences in 
CoS are bound to have some impact on her and possibly on the plot in 
the future.

> 
> I suppose, thinking out loud, that I wouldn't mind H/G as an 
ultimate outcome nearly as much if they had a mature adult 
relationship before committing to marriage.   Most H/H shippers, 
myself included, prefer to see the teenage characters be teenagers: 
date around, have fun (to the extent they can have fun during a War 
that is), grow up before committing to a romantic relationship.  Live 
a little in other words.  

I can't speak for what most H/G shippers think, but I know I agree 
with you completely here - I don't want them completely and 
committedly paired off by the story's end, but I would like to hear 
about it in the epilogue.

> 
> Someone (Finwitch?) mentioned that maybe Ron & Hermione might marry 
>in 6th or 7th year at Hogwarts.  I can't imagine JKR doing this.  
>Even if the age of consent is 17 & even if wizards do marry earlier 
>than muggles, one would hope (in my case one would hope fervently) 
>that they would at least complete their basic schooling before 
>taking on a marriage.  Yikes!  

Eeew, I don't like that idea either.  Eeeew!  Ron and Hermione 
married at Hogwarts?  Ick ick ick ick.  I mean, do they get their own 
dorm then or does Hermione just move into Ron's four-poster?  Is 
there married student housing?  Again I say Ick!

> I noted in that post that while JKR has done a really excellent but 
>subtle job of conveying Ron's burgeoning romantic interest in 
>Hermione, she has most definitely *not* done this with Ginny.  

Do you mean she hasn't done this with Harry?  She's definitely 
established that Ginny is smitten.  Or did you mean it wasn't subtle 
or well-done?  I agree it wasn't subtle, but I don't think it always 
has to be - it's certainly not always subtle in real life.  As for 
Harry, I imagine she hasn't conveyed his interest because at this 
point he doesn't have one.  Doesn't mean much either way about how 
he'll feel a year or six into the future, but I'm sure she'll lay the 
groundwork if that's where she's going.

>We get this slight sense about Ron's interest in Hermione in CoS, 
>which increases ever so slightly in POA & then when we get to the 
>Yule Ball of GoF, we're not at all shocked that Ron has an obvious 
>crush on Hermione (even if he himself is blind to it).  However, 
>with Ginny, JKR's not only not shown Harry ever have any thought 
>whatsoever about Ginny as a girl (other than being mildly annoyed 
>whenever anyone mentions her crush on him), she's also done nothing 
>to develop Ginny as a character.  I still maintain that this is a 
>possibly the biggest sign in my mind that H/G isn't likely to 
>happen.  If we'd had even slightly more development of Ginny as a 
>person, I'd be more open-minded about the possibility.  But, for now 
>I just question why JKR would give so little development to Ginny if 
>she did intend her to be the ultimate love-interest of the hero.  

I have a completely different take on Ginny's lack of development.  
It has been my experience that when an author holds back on a 
character that arguably *ought* to have more development, it's 
usually because they either want to keep the reader wondering about 
that character (which would seem to have worked somewhat in this 
case) or they're setting up something big for that character at a 
later time, or both.  In fact that's precisely why I started 
speculating about what role Ginny was going to play in the future - I 
smelled a set-up.  Granted that doesn't mean she's going to be the 
hero's love interest, but I'm convinced something's *up* with her.  
 
> Incidentally though, back to character development (or lack 
>thereof), I guess I'd note that it seems to me that if Rowling's 
>intent was simply to use the romance line as a minor "mood 
>lightener" in an otherwise dark period in the series, I wonder why 
>she would leave Hermione's romantic feelings so ambiguous.  <snip>> 

I can't think of much that's ever served only one purpose in JKR's 
writing so far.  I think the point is more that romance might not be 
pivotal to the A-plot.  Not that it won't involve conflict or that it 
will be strictly fluff, but that it might contribute to lightening 
the mood by not being a life-or-death thing for a change, but part of 
the normal process of growing up.  It's possible that the romantic 
inclinations of the characters may cause doom all around, but I feel 
like there's plenty of doom to go around already and certain aspects 
of their lives might serve to remind the reader that they're still 
normal adolescents for whom some aspects of life retain the usual 
level of pain and pleasure and humiliation and exhileration.  

> David said:
> > Poor Devin got a lot of flack for pairing Ginny with Harry a few 
weeks ago
> > because she is the only other character to have had a serious run-
in with
> > Voldemort.  I believe he is on to something, though.
> 
> Christine agreed:
> 
> <<<<*nods* As do I. Even if nothing romantic comes of it, there is 
the undeniable
> fact that Ginny has had an experience that gives her an 
understanding of Harry
> on a level that no one else has (at least, for the moment).>>>>>>
> 
Penny:
> I'm sorry, but I always wonder about this whenever it gets raised 
>because, well, Ginny was *unconscious* during the entire battle 
>between Harry & Riddle in the Chamber.  
>She says that the last thing she remembers before losing 
>consciousness was Riddle coming out of the diary.  So, I guess I'm 
>always perplexed about this so-called "bond" between them.  Yes, she 
>wrote in a diary & maintained correspondence with him over a period 
>of months.  But, when he materialized, she faded to 
>black.  :::shrugs::: 


I think that in large part this is a symbolic parallel.  I know 
that's what David was referring to in his post, at least, but even 
more literally, why did she fade to black?  From the way Riddle got 
stronger as she and Harry got weaker, it seems to me that she faded 
to black because he was using her... life force(? energy, power... 
something).  After months of what I'd call intimate interaction with 
Riddle's power, and having her life nearly sapped away by him, I'd 
think it qualifies as a significant contact.  After all, Harry can't 
fully remember his first contact with V either.

Regardless, she's the only one who's had *any* contact with him and 
lived besides Harry himself, presumably Dumbledore in PS/SS and the 
DEs.  It establishes a literary tie that I would expect to see 
addressed one way or another.  And since we know already that saving 
someone's life creates a bond, there's no question whether that 
incident created a bond between them (oops, almost typed that it 
created a bong between them, which would change things considerably), 
so I don't think it's a stretch to say that her being the only other 
one to have had contact with him adds to that, especially since they 
were both taken in by the diary.  It's possible that this bond will 
result in her dying for him (or any of a number of other scenarios) 
rather than the two of them falling in love, but knowing that one of 
them clearly has feelings for the other, and that a certain bond 
exists, it's not an illogical leap for people to anticipate a 
possible ship there and grow fond of the idea.


kimberly
who grows fond of ideas rather easily and who has been trailing along 
behind the Fourth Man's various vessels for some time in secret for 
fear that Faith will find out.




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 20:27:00 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 20:27:00 -0000
Subject: Wizards coming of age
In-Reply-To: <a91qmq+38f8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9276k+mc9f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37679

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

> Since the pool of available jobs and available mates within the 
> WW is so much smaller, it seems  to me that wizards could get 
> settled in life  much more quickly than we can. Why shouldn't 
> they marry young, raise their children, and "live a little" once the 
> kids are out of the house? 

Like many things, it looks like a matter of economics to me.  Children
are expensive.  It's generally not a good idea to have one unless
you're sure you can feed and clothe it.  The Potters could do it
because James apparently had family money.  But a Weasley, for
example, would have to work for financial security first, which may
partially explain why Bill and Charlie are still unsettled (I'm sure
their temperament has something to do with it, too).

Professional advancement in the WW must be difficult, not just because
of the limited job pool, but also because wizard longevity means that
someone who's got a desirable job can stick with it for decades before
retiring and letting somebody else have a go.  So I suspect that young
non-wealthy wizard may actually find it even more difficult to settle
down than young non-wealthy Muggles.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Apr 10 21:21:39 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:21:39 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and evil/ Lupin as werewolf
Message-ID: <d1.16d8ae17.29e606e3@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37680

DG: 
> No, I think Dumbledore knows exactly what is going on around him, but
> only reveals his awareness if it suits a purpose or if he is forced to
> by circumstance.

I'd like to agree with you, particularly as you seem to be agreeing with me < 
:-) >, but unfortunately, IIRC, Dumbledore actually tells us that he *didn't* 
know about the Marauders being Animagi. I think there is more to it. I think 
he actually *didn't* know, although he could have, had he thought it 
necessary (which gets into all sorts of complications about how one knows if 
something *is* necessary without knowing it first etc, which takes me back to 
my theory that he is acting to an agenda.)

..................................

Marina, in conversation with Adatole:
>> Sirius and/or Lupin specifically state in PoA that Lupin was much 
>> more controllable when with his friends in animal form, 
>
>Yeah, but the question is, *why*?  The only explanation I can think of
>is that werewolves turn into some special magical kind of wolf whose
>instincts are different from a regular wolf's.

>> Also, to answer a long-past question, Sirius states specifically in 
>> that same section that as animals they were immune to the effects of 
>>the werewolf's bite. 

>They were immune to becoming werewolves themselves, yeah.  But they
>wouldn't be immune to having their throats torn out.

I don't think the conversation is terribly specific. Lupin says (PoA, p260, 
UK) that a werewolf is only dangerous to humans, not that it is only humans 
who are in danger of being infected by lycanthropy. He's quite vague, IMO. 
Then he says that his mind seemed less wolfish in their company (and *there* 
is the *why* question, to my mind) and that Sirius and James transformed into 
such large animals that they were able to control him. The transformation we 
*see* however, renders him capable of causing injury to Sirius, which rather 
contradicts the above. I confess myself unable to make sense of the evidence. 
The Wolfsbane potion renders him a 'harmless' wolf, which rather implies it 
would be safe to give him refuge on one's hearth-rug. I wonder if it would? 

Eloise (who quite likes wolves and thinks they've been given a very bad 
press, despite her youngest's favourite story being Little Red Riding Hood.)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 10 21:39:53 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:39:53 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and evil/ Lupin as werewolf
In-Reply-To: <d1.16d8ae17.29e606e3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a92bf9+kfod@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37681

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:

> I don't think the conversation is terribly specific. Lupin says
(PoA, p260, 
> UK) that a werewolf is only dangerous to humans, not that it is only
humans 
> who are in danger of being infected by lycanthropy. He's quite
vague, IMO. 
> Then he says that his mind seemed less wolfish in their company (and
*there* 
> is the *why* question, to my mind) and that Sirius and James
transformed into 
> such large animals that they were able to control him. The
transformation we 
> *see* however, renders him capable of causing injury to Sirius,
which rather 
> contradicts the above. 

Sirius was not in the best physical shape after 12 years in Azkaban
and a year on the run, so it's likely Padfoot was weaker than his
normal self too.  And James wasn't there -- perhaps Padfoot and Prongs
together could've kept the wolf under control without damage to
anyone.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 19:02:45 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:02:45 -0000
Subject: Riddle's popularity/Dumbledore and evil (was re: Dicu...
In-Reply-To: <a91vj0+1heg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9228l+i68n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37682

About Head-Boys and Head-Girls... In Finland, students *elect* 2 
students to present them in the school-board. Just as an example, the 
student-representatives in my upper-level Elementary managed to get a 
ban against gum overruled. Just to say that a student-organisation 
can get rid of unliked rules. Though I wasn't a representative, I 
remember it being a 'we did it!' - a moment of true joy.

That's one benefit of organisation, and other one is to get practice 
about what *voting* actually means and to vote before being old 
egnouh to vote in state/communal elections.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" <trog at w...> wrote:
> An _informed_ ignorence. :)
> 
> There's ignorence-as-cluelessness, then there's
> ignorence-as-tacit-approval, and then there's
> ignorence-as-teaching-skill.
> 
> The latter two aren't really ignorence. You _know_ what's going on,
> but you pretend otherwise unless you're forced to step in.
> 
> The Marauder's activities are to my mind, Dumbldore letting them run
> wild a bit so they can learn some life skills - it's more supervised
> than they think. Same with Harry's contact with Sirius in GoF.
> 
> The rescue of BuckBeak in PoA is ignorence-as-approval.

And - the *obviously* pretended deafness about Harry's insult on Rita 
Skeeter goes to the category of ignorance-as-approval.
 
> No, I think Dumbledore knows exactly what is going on around him, 
bit
> only reveals his awareness if it suits a purpose or if he is forced 
to
> by circumstance.
 
Yes, I do believe he knows, by conclusions based on facts, 
experience, and his ability to tell when someone's lying to him.

--Finwitch





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 18:15:31 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:15:31 -0000
Subject: Wizards coming of age
In-Reply-To: <a91k1i+dmvg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a91vg3+6bno@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37683

Ali:
> I've just been idling away a bit of time wondering why wizards come 
> of age at 17 - not 18.

Well, my theory: it's because 17 is a Prime near enough 18.
Harry gets his letter at 11(also prime)
First time in Hogsmeade: Age of 13, 3rd year(primes)
OWLs at 5th year for 5 years of study (primes again)
NEWTs and adulthood, 7th year, at 17 (primes again).

17 over 19 because 9 is not a prime. It just fits in nicely.
29 knuts to a Sickle(prime again)... Primes are strongly associated 
with magical patterns...

Only exception to these Primes is the 4 houses, 4 Marauders and 9 
Weasleys. But... these a the squares of 2 and 3 - and thus, also 
considered magical numbers...





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 19:46:42 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:46:42 -0000
Subject: Lupin the werewolf (Was Re: Krum the shark (Was Animagi))
In-Reply-To: <a91qal+6nii@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a924r2+p82g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37684

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" <adatole at y...> wrote:
> 
> > Sirius and/or Lupin specifically state in PoA that Lupin was much 
> > more controllable when with his friends in animal form, 
> 
> Yeah, but the question is, *why*?  The only explanation I can think 
of
> is that werewolves turn into some special magical kind of wolf whose
> instincts are different from a regular wolf's.

Hmm... I think it'd be *more* to do with wolf-instincts of a true 
wolf. A wolf doesn't normally attack except under run-or-fight 
situation, being rabid or hunting. The difference between werewolves 
and real ones is specific: Werewolves hunt *only* humans, true wolves 
hunt big prey but preferably not humans.

Wolves are pack-animals. Moony saw the Marauders as his *pack*, 
particularly another canine, Padfoot. A wolf in a pack isn't likely 
to leave the pack. That's what gave their mere being there the 
ability to "control" Moony - possibly even with Prongs as the pack-
leader, so Moony would obey instinctively.

> > Also, to answer a long-past question, Sirius states specifically 
in 
> > that same section that as animals they were immune to the effects 
of 
> > the werewolf's bite. 
> 
> They were immune to becoming werewolves themselves, yeah.  But they
> wouldn't be immune to having their throats torn out.

Except that werewolves only hunt humans. They formed a pack - and 
wolves don't attack pack-mates. And, if Prongs was leader and Padfoot 
second, controlling Moony was in line with wolf-instinct.

--Finwitch





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 19:20:43 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:20:43 -0000
Subject: Snape's task - Azkaban?
In-Reply-To: <a912nl+j1g7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a923ab+t8ho@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37685

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jaymzhuk" <jwh at c...> wrote:
> 
> Is it possible Snape's task at the end of GoF was to go (back?) to 
> Azkaban to do something involving either the Dementers or the 
> incarcerated DEs?
> 
> Would certainly fit with him going pale, and we know LV has his 
eyes 
> on the place.
> 
> Just a random thought..

I've thought so myself. After all, if "the one in Hogwarts who has 
left me for ever. We will kill him, of course" refers to Snape, 
(supposedly Harry told Dumbledore that part) it's definately NOT a 
spying job.

Dumbledore told Fudge two things that needed to be done - One about 
giants(Hagrid&Maxime will do that) and one about sending Dementors 
out of Azkaban. Dumbledore tells Snape that Snape *knows* what he 
must ask... Snape knows because he heard Dumbledore telling Fudge 
what to do!

It's obvious to me that Snape's task has to do with Dementors.

--Finwitch





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 21:53:01 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:53:01 -0000
Subject: Ginny (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <a926v9+3o9g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a92c7t+k8tg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37686


> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
> > 
> > Someone (Finwitch?) mentioned that maybe Ron & Hermione might 
marry 
> >in 6th or 7th year at Hogwarts.  I can't imagine JKR doing this.  
> >Even if the age of consent is 17 & even if wizards do marry 
earlier 
> >than muggles, one would hope (in my case one would hope fervently) 
> >that they would at least complete their basic schooling before 
> >taking on a marriage.  Yikes!

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "moongirlk" <moongirlk at y...> wrote:> 
> Eeew, I don't like that idea either.  Eeeew!  Ron and Hermione 
> married at Hogwarts?  Ick ick ick ick.  I mean, do they get their 
own 
> dorm then or does Hermione just move into Ron's four-poster?  Is 
> there married student housing?  Again I say Ick!

Hermione's going to be a prefect. That already means she has her 
*own* private bedroom. (Percy said something to the effect of 
prefects having their own rooms in book #1...) That, I suppose, takes 
care of the sleeping-arrangements. They've done their *basic* 
schooling then - OWLs are taken during 5th year. Prefects might get 
*paid* for all I know(10 Galleons a week?), and Ron might take on 
teaching job(teaching first-years things wizard-borns take for 
granted) or work at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes. And Harry would give 
them quite a Wedding Gift to live on for starters...

Ginny and Neville might do nicely together... Now they're both doing 
the "narrative disappearance".

--Finwitch





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 22:36:52 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:36:52 -0000
Subject: Prefects paid/Ron & Hermione Marrying in School/Prime nos. (was: Ginny (SHIP))
In-Reply-To: <a92c7t+k8tg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a92eq4+sk7e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37687

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> Hermione's going to be a prefect. That already means she has her 
> *own* private bedroom. (Percy said something to the effect of 
> prefects having their own rooms in book #1...) 

Could you please find this reference?  I don't believe it actually 
says that.  Percy indicates that there are compartments on the 
Hogwarts Express that have been set aside for prefects, but there 
has always been every indication that even when a student is 
appointed a prefect, he/she continues to live the same dorm-mates 
they've had since first year.  Which only makes sense; if the 
prefects are supposed to augment the instructors by being their eyes 
and ears when the instructors can't be present, it would be 
difficult for them to do that if they are not in the same dorm.  
There are numerous fanfics that put prefects and especially Head Boy 
and Head Girl in separate quarters, but we should remember that 
we're discussing canon here, not fanon.

> Prefects might get *paid* for all I know(10 Galleons a week?), and 
> Ron might take on teaching job(teaching first-years things wizard-
> borns take for granted) or work at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes. And 
> Harry would give them quite a Wedding Gift to live on for 
> starters...
 
Now, I'm afraid this is getting more and more unlikely the longer 
this goes on.  Prefects being paid?  I believe if that were true 
Percy would have been paid as Head Boy as well, possibly paid more 
than prefects, which would have been something else he could have 
lorded over the other people he knew, as he lorded over them the 
fact that he was a prefect and then Head Boy.  The Weasleys being 
rather cash-poor all the time, Percy getting paid for going to 
school would have been a topic of conversation, especially if Ron 
stood a chance of borrowing money from him.  None of this happened.  
I'm afraid that when you propose a theory, you have to be prepared 
for all of the implications of the theory, and this just does not 
wash at all.

It really is extremely, extraordinarily unlikely that anyone--let 
alone Ron and Hermione--will get married while in school.  In 
addition to the other excellent reasons people have cited (and I do 
NOT include such responses as "Eeewww!" and "Ick!") JKR just would 
not DO that.  It would completely disrupt the entire dynamic of the 
books.  On top of that, I cannot think of a less likely candidate 
for a child bride than Hermione Granger.  There could be the outside 
chance that some students could leave school after taking the 
O.W.L.s and potentially marriage could follow after that, but that 
is still somewhat unlikely.  We have yet to hear of someone not 
completing the entire seven years.

And also--the prime number theory is kind of cute, but also wildly 
unlikely, in spite of the preponderance of primes in wizarding 
currency.  The wizarding age of 17 being important is no doubt for 
the previous reason mentioned having to with a) a parallel in the 
Muggle world with being able to drive and b) giving the seventh-year 
students more autonomy and freedom.  (If there are certain kinds of 
magic you cannot do until you are of age and you do not become of 
age until after you finish school, how are you supposed to learn 
these spells?).  I doubt, for instance, that the British government 
gave much thought to prime numbers when making the driving age 17.<g>

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb







From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 21:06:46 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:06:46 -0000
Subject: Ron & Authority (was Re: Attitudes toward authority, Ron's complex...)
In-Reply-To: <a8vpno+e3gj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a929h6+8ls2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37688

> 
> I guess I always assumed that (although this might make Percy seem 
> even stranger) his parents taught him that authority is not to be 
> trusted without question.  I would think that Arthur and Molly, 
> having lived through Voldemort's reign of terror and knowing the 
> people who were sucked into his web and the respected positions 
they 
> had held, would consider it wise to prepare their children to try 
to 
> discern for themselves.  

Child X did something not so nice, Molly/Arthur asks why, the child 
says: "because X told me so". The parent replies: "Would you jump 
into a well(or some other stupid thing to do) if X told you to?"

Yes, I do think it has to do with Molly/Arthur teaching their kids to 
question. Molly provides the questionable orders and Arthur supports 
the kids who question them. (But always with: be nice to your mother, 
let's not tell her...) Molly vs. Arthur on Muggle-thing-collection is 
another clear example of disagreeing parents. But when they *do* 
agree on something, it's supposed to hold. (like twin's toffee... 
Aldur didn't like their feeding it to Dudley, but accepts their 
business-idea, unlike Molly).

Percy, then... He only leaves office because his father "forces" him 
to? Would stay away from his family if his brothers didn't make him 
stay with them by making a *rule* saying he's to stay with family-
members on Christmas? "Percy loves rules". I think he can't see the 
forest from the trees, that his ethical maturity has never grown 
beyond *rules*. A totally unselfish workaholic. Percy works like a 
house-elf! No rest, no break, unless someone tells him to. He sees 
Crouch Sr. like Winky does!

> They're the types of people who find it only fair to tell Harry 
when 
> Black is after him, and who clearly talk enough about the situation 
> for Ron to know that the Malfoys are not trustworthy even though 
the 
> wizarding world in general seems to hold them in high esteem.

And Percy's prefect-friends said differently, I suppose, as well as 
some the ministry-members.

> From the ways that the other Weasley siblings behave, only Percy 
> would seem to contradict this, and he is at odds with the rest of 
the 
> family in so many other areas that I don't think it discounts the 
> possibility entirely.  Look at Ginny - when she finally decided to 
> try to get outside help with the Riddle situation in CoS, she 
didn't 
> go to an authority figure, she went to her brothers.  Fred and 
George 
> clearly aren't in awe of those in authority, and from Bill's and 
> Charlie's career choices, they don't strike me as the most 
> heirarchically-minded people either.

Yes... Other Weasleys trust *family* over authorities - Percy chooses 
to do just the opposite. All other Weasley's do *something* Molly 
doesn't approve, all but Percy. Except when Percy is being quite a 
critique against his father-- when *all* other Weasleys are on 
Arthur's side. Percy does one thing - the rest of family other, 
unless a family member stands firm with him, making him follow the 
*family code*.

You think Bill's a rebel by appearance Molly criticises? Or 
Fred&George with their practical jokes? Oh no -- that's just against 
Molly's opinions, but Percy's rebelling against his *entire* family 
every chance he gets!

--Finwitch





From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Wed Apr 10 23:31:35 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:31:35 -0000
Subject: When You Cash In On Your Scar (filk)
Message-ID: <a92i0n+fe5t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37689

When You Cash In On Your Scar (from CoS, Chap. 6)

To the tune of When You Wish Upon a Star, from Pinocchio

Dedicated to GiNnY

THE SCENE: Before Professor's Sprout's Greenhouse. LOCKHART offers 
some sage advice to HARRY

LOCKHART (spoken): Don't know when I've been more shocked. Flying a 
car to Hogwarts! Well, of course, I knew at once why you'd done it.

.Gave you a taste for publicity, didn't I? Gave you the bug. You got 
onto the front page of the paper with me and you couldn't wait to do 
it again

.

HARRY (spoken): Oh, no, Professor, see

..

LOCKHART (music)
Don't cash in yet on your scar
Make sure to lose the flying car
No one likes it when nobodies
Arise too fast.

Wait until some years go by
Then for the brass ring make a try
Let them know how You-Know-Who
Haunted your past.

Fame is cool
She'll bring you cash and crowds
But do not act too proud 
`Cause it's not charming

Soon like me, ol' Gilderoy
You'll arrive to give fans joy
When you cash in on your scar
You'll have a blast
.

(LOCKHART gives HARRY  a conspiratorial wink, and strides off)

  - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 
(updated 4/6/02 with 24 new filks!)





From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 22:06:15 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (Rohit Puskoor)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Krum the shark/NAGINI'S BANE/MOZART/why does everyone love Hermione
In-Reply-To: <1018473753.3764.56238.m5@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020410220615.77547.qmail@web13401.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37690

After reading about the suggestion of a romantic tryst
between Krum and Hermione in their partially
transfigured animal forms all i have to say is, "Eww,
a cat and a SHARK???"  Talk about something being
"violently wrong." :P

Seriously though, I think the likelihood of Hermione
being the 8th person this century (or rather, in the
previous century) to become an animagus... or
actually, I guess it would be 12th person (assuming
there were no other illegal animagi besides Pettigrew,
James Potter, Sirius Black and Rita Skeeter) is quite
high.  As I remarked before, she seems to share James'
talent in transfiguration, since it seems like
McGonagall and her have built some kind of mentoring
relationship and Transfiguration appears to be one of
her best classes (along with Charms... I know, I know
she's always talking about Arithmancy, but so far,
we've only WITNESSED her excel in Transfiguration and
Charms).  It could end up being some kind of senior
project for her or something :D

Tabouli, I think NAGINI'S BANE is incredibly clever! 
Genius, i tell you, genius!  So clever, b/c if the
theory's right, they really will prove to be Nagini's
bane (as well as Nagini's master's bane).  And
WOLFGANG AMADEUS MOZART is equally clever, though I
think it's highly unlikely that either of them will
turn to the Dark Side, especially Neville, since he's
seen first-hand since he was a baby the horrifying
effects of the death eaters' work.  Ginny could be
slightly more likely than Neville, I suppose, but she
REALLY doesn't seem like the type--although perhaps
she could be Imperius-ed easily.  But I'd rather see
my two favorite non-major characters save the day
once.  Oh, and those of you who made me think about
Ginny and Neville being paired off... did we ever see
ginny again in Goblet of Fire after the ball?

I really love how Rowling brought back the whole
concept of illegal animagi in book 4, after having
introduced it in Book 3.  I wonder if we're going to
see something else from Book 3 used again in the later
books--the Time Turner.  So many interesting issues
could be brought up with it... are there more powerful
time turners than the one Hermione used, that could be
used to go back days, weeks, months, or even years? 
Could Harry use a more powerful turner to go back and
at least see his parents, if not interact with them? 
Will any of our favorite characters be tempted to go
back and change the past using the device?  And I
would like to see the Pensieve brought back again.  

Someone mentioned how hermione almost seems to have
more support on this list than Harry, and I was
pondering why everyone loves Hermione.  I think it's
because up to this point, she seems to be the
character who has displayed the most personal growth. 
Not uncommon, since she's the only girl among the
group and we boys tend to mature more slowly (Hey, i
*still* act 11 sometimes... I'm still cracking up
about Ron's "Uranus" joke... and I was shocked Rowling
put that in there :P).  Also, I respect her because
while she is highly concerned with academic success
and proving herself, she displays enough maturity as
early as the first book to recognize that her academic
success is not the most important thing in the world. 
 That's incredible wisdom for someone so young--not
even sure I've truly recognized that quite yet.  And
lastly, while she is the teachers' favorite, she is
still quite hated by Snape and insulted by the
Slytherins for being a mudblood, so there's sympathy
there--I think Rowling's drawn her as a very
sympathetic character.  She's definitely a brainiac,
but she's not drawn as unsympathetically as say Percy.
 I would say the primary difference between her and
Percyi is that she recognizes school and rules are not
the most important things in the world, and she's
guided strongly by compassion (witness her treatment
of Snape, her protection of Lupin, her refusal to
automatically judge the Durmstrang students, etc etc.)
 Part of me wonders if she was at all hurt that Ron
was the thing Harry would miss most; not in any kind
of romantic way, just any hurt that Harry still
considered Ron his bestest best friend and Hermione
still came in second, even after the whole ordeal with
the Goblet of Fire and Hermione being the only one to
believe him and stick by him.  Or perhaps he selected
both of them, and since Viktor had already chosen
Hermione, the professors "allotted" him Ron only...
who knows?

I was just thinking, it's interesting that each member
of the Trio has an identifying characteristic that
could easily have led to their being sorted into
another house.  Ron's intense loyalty to the people he
loves is a very Hufflepuff quality; Hermione's
cleverness--Ravenclaw; and the Sorting Hat itself said
that Harry's desire to prove himself (and, as
Dumbledore commented, his willingness to break the
rules, among other things) would make him a good fit
for Slytherin.  I wish we knew what the Sorting Hat
had said to Ron and Hermione, and I'm also wondering
whether Rowling did this on purpose.   A group of 3
Gryffindors who are also representative of the other 3
houses of Hogwarts--obviously, had they been sorted
into the other houses, they wouldn't have been able to
interact with each other.  I want to find out more
about the Sorting Hat!

Rohit (columbiatexan)


=====
"That is one of my more brilliant ideas, and between you and me, that is saying something."

-Professor Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, J.K. Rowling

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




From Bugeater93 at aol.com  Thu Apr 11 00:01:05 2002
From: Bugeater93 at aol.com (Bugeater93 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 20:01:05 EDT
Subject: Riddle's popularity/Dumbledore and evil (was re: Dicussion Question #2) 
Message-ID: <198.52140d0.29e62c41@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37691

Shayla wrote:
>>>>>>>>
as for Dumbledore himself, I have to disagree with your comment about him 
knowing that Tom Riddle had framed Hagrid. Dumbledore really appears in the 
books to be omniscient, but there is ,
clear evidence that he is not. he did not know about mwpp being animagi
and he didn't realize his own defense against the dark arts teacher was an 
imposter for *months*. no, the man may be very aware of what happens within 
his school, but he does not know everything. he may very well have 
*suspected* that there was something amiss with Tom riddle, but with a 
complete lack of evidence in Hagrid's defense, and probably with the 
opinion of the school board about teaching a half giant anyway, he may have 
had no choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>

>From what I've gathered reading chat transcripts and theories, etc...I 
actually believe Dumbledore's so-called 'omniscience' has to do specifically 
with his office.  So, maybe Dumbedore's office has special properties that 
let him see into other rooms or listen to conversations within the Hogwart's 
grounds?  That way, whenever Dumbledore is out of his office, he misses 
things that happen, like perhaps Riddle's framing of Hagrid.  And this could 
explain other things he's missed, too, like the Marauder's being animagi and 
Crouch Jr's impersonation of Moody.  After all, Dumbledore is a busy man and 
doesn't have time to snoop for hours on end.  He probably only snoops when he 
has specific suspicions, or if he just wants to check up on someone, like 
Harry.

                                                                              
   ~Michelle


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 23:10:15 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:10:15 -0000
Subject: Hermione/Ron/Crouch Sr./Hedgehogs/Twins
In-Reply-To: <1a9.64fcd9.29e3c237@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a92gon+5uca@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37692

Debbie:

What 
> disturbed me about that scene is that George allowed his conscience 
to be 
> overruled.  To tell the truth, the twins have been on my radar 
screen ever 
> since first reading CoS, where they act like a pair of cat burglars 
when they 
> rescue Harry from the Dursleys.


They *rescued* him, though. They *borrowed* the Family Car to do so, 
returned *Harry's* things to Harry after the Dursleys had stolen 
them...

Debbie:
 
> Early last week, DG made an observation that ties into the non-
canonical, 
> real-world reason I'm not comfortable with Fred & George:
> 
> It has been my experience though, that men cut from the Fred & 
George
> mold tend to make better leaders than those cut from the Percy mold.
> Those of my peers who played the game flawlessly and wound up in
> positions of power within the school went on to competant, but
> indistinguished, careers as middle-managers. Those that played a
> little more fast and loose with the rules, used their initiative 
more
> often, and occasionally ran afoul of the rules, seem more inclined
> (once they made contact with the Real World) to go forth to 
greatness.
> 
> I agree that Fred and George exhibit many qualities that echo the 
backgrounds 
> of highly successful entrepreneurs.  They are innovators and risk-
takers.  
> But there is a line between aggressive innovation and leadership 
and illegal 
> activity.  My experience (I am a tax lawyer whose resume includes 
experience 
> in "off balance sheet financing," - gasp - which, yes,  is what got 
Enron 
> into trouble) has been that many want to walk that line, and some 
view the 
> line as much more elastic than it is.  Some of those fall over the 
line, and 
> of those, some fall quite far.  Of those who fall, some get caught 
and some 
> don't.  For some it is a mistake they try not to repeat, but for 
others the 
> edge becomes a way of life.  In short, in the real world, playing 
fast and 
> loose with the rules can lead to legal trouble.

Children's book by Astrid Lindgren might do a good read for you. 
Particularly a story about a young boy called Emil, who's famous of 
his pranks particularly one where he draws his little sister up like 
a flag so she can see farer-- (he always gets caught, he always has 
good intent, he's been punished over 100 times for his "pranks") - he 
ends up being a *hero*, saving the life of a man by taking him to a 
doctor when he was told it was "impossible" - he did it anyway. He 
ended up with a great, fine job.

  With the twins, their 
> rulebreaking for the fun of it, their sometimes pushing things too 
far (as 
> with the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident, which still makes me cringe), 
the 
> implication of the Owlery scene that they're willing to push things 
VERY 
> close to the edge - even George thought it was blackmail, all add 
up to a 
> pair I can't trust not to succumb to the lure of easy financing.
> 
> I realize my reading of the twins is highly idiosyncratic, and 
maybe a bit 
> subversive, as my experiences that led me to the Soon to be Evil!

Blackmail? They were merely asking Ludo Bagman to pay off the money 
he owes them! It's not blackmail - it's watching out for their 
rights. As a pair they work out fine. Fred sees to complaint when 
they're wronged, George sees to credit when they're helped. Pair of 
criticism, one giving out the negative and other the positive.

About turning Ron's teddybear into spider... was it accidental or 
purposeful? It is pretty odd that a 5-year-old *could* do that on 
purpose. Fred's old teddy, Ron doesn't seem to like it, Fred gets 
terribly offended-- bang! Teddy's suddenly a spider...

--Finwitch





From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 10 22:39:17 2002
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (ms_petra_pan)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:39:17 -0000
Subject: Hermione's Choice [was] Ginny (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <008301c1deac$3e723da0$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a92eul+ubav@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37693

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
>> Incidentally though, back to character development (or lack 
thereof), I guess I'd note that it seems to me that if Rowling's 
intent was simply to use the romance line as a minor "mood lightener" 
in an otherwise dark period in the series, I wonder why she would 
leave Hermione's romantic feelings so ambiguous.  I mean: why make 
Ron's interest so horribly obvious & leave Hermione's feelings such a 
wildcard?  Might it be conflict?  <g>  I'm sure there are lots of 
other reasons (and I'll get told there are), but I'm fairly convinced 
that if R/H was meant to be a foregone conclusion, we readers wouldn't 
be in too much doubt about it at this juncture.  I note that many 
fervent R/H shippers are willing to concede that Hermione's feelings 
are not clear-cut at this stage.  So, if all the romance is to do is 
lighten the mood, what would be JKR's motivation in hiding/clouding 
Hermione's interest level in Ron?  Why not depict it so that all the 
readers are thinking "Aww...isn't that *sweet* ...they both like each 
other but they're typical adolescents & don't know it yet"?  I mean, 
if it's *just* a mood-lightening subplot, why make it complicated, 
right?  <<

Why?  Because cliffhangers keep you coming back...and JKR is very 
adept at keeping us in suspense.

Who here isn't dying for books 5, 6, and 7 because we are not sure how 
things are going to develop and can't wait to find out?  If people 
aren't just dying to read what will happen next, would there be so 
many of us (myself included) here obsessing away?  :)  We are living 
proof that JKR's a master tale-spinner.

[ Is there someone saying that s/he isn't obsessing and that s/he is 
just here to research a paper?!?  Umm, did you read the first 4?  Come 
to think of it, any student would be foolish to lift any posts here 
verbatim.  If you haven't read the books, good luck as you sort our 
favorite wild theories and fanon from the canon.  :)  Imagine a lit 
professor or English teacher 

reading a paper on romance in Harry 
Potter books, wondering "Who the h*ll is Mary Sue?"  Anyhoo...I 
digress. ]

The vague end of GoF leaves us in the fog as to Hermione's true 
romantic inclinations, but not so in the rest of the book.  As I read 
each instance of Hermione's jealous reaction to Ron goggling at other 
girls / women / veelas, I thought "Aww...isn't that sweet...they both 
like each other but they're typical adolescents and don't know it 
yet."  Only after discovering the extent to which 
Viktor likes her, 
had Hermione's feelings become much less clear.  GoF ends as Hermione 
continues to sort through her feelings for the guys in her life and 
the paradigm shift to being the object of male affection (from more 
than one male, no less) - this is something she has yet to learn from 
a book.

Throughout all four of the books, Hermione doesn't pay the same kind 
of attention to the other boys, not Harry nor for that matter Viktor.  
Hermione has also never warmed to Ron's many objects of teenage 
passion but had no jealousy about Harry's sole crush, Cho.  She did 
however find Viktor's stalkers annoying but not because she saw them 
as competition for Viktor's attention.

Having said all that...  

If Ron and Hermione ever do get together, our experience of the sizzle 
/ dramatic tension between them would change.  Chances are, much of it 
would be out of Harry's POV...and there are three more books to go in 
which comic relief would be sorely needed!  As a subplot, this one is 
much like her other ones: complicated enough to be the main plot for a 
book all by itself.

BTW, since I identify at one point or another in the books with every 
potential girlfriend for Harry that this list has nominated, I will be 
happy with whatever JKR commits to paper.  Just as long as she does 
so...sooner than later.  As to Ginny, I'd like to see her reach her 
potential for her OWN sake...and not merely to provide someone with a 
worthy love interest.

With lifesaver in hand, dipping my toe (





From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 01:14:08 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Barty Jr. on Snape - Sirius on Barty Sr. - Male role models - Ward HP
Message-ID: <20020411011408.82317.qmail@web20307.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37694

jc wrote:

>1)Did Barty Crouch, Jr. know that Snape was
permanently off of V's 
>team?  If so, is he the one informing V about who the
trio are, or is 
>he staying quiet about it to fit in with the role. 
Also, if he 
>DIDN'T know, why didn't he try to recruit Snape?

Hmmm . . . this whole cluster of questions really
intrigues me.  Just how much Voldemort and others know
about Snape's true loyalties is rather a key question.

If Barty *did* want to recruit Snape, he would have a
problem.  How would he approach him without revealing
his own loyalties?  Mad-Eye Moody can't sidle up to
Snape and say "nudge nudge, you still a DE?"  If he's
at all hopeful that Snape's heart is still with V, all
he can do is try to feel him out.

Rita wrote:

>> Remember Sirius's comment about looking at how a
man treats his 
> subordinates to understand what he's really like?

>I remain alarmed that JKR put that remark into
Sirius's mouth in a 
>chapter in which pretty much all else Sirius said
turned out to be 
>pretty much wrong. Is she trying to cast doubt on
that truism?

Nah, I don't think so, because it's a different kind
of remark.  Many of Sirius's theories end up being
wrong, whether in that chapter or elsewhere (e.g.
Karkaroff is not trying to kill Harry as Sirius fears
in chapter 19), but in that he's just like everyone
else who's trying to figure this stuff out (e.g.
Dumbledore, the Trio).  It doesn't call into question
his judgment of character nor his general approach to
human nature.

Laura wrote:

>Whenever I think of someone who is teaching Harry to
open up to 
>his emotions, it's Hagrid. 

Two other men come to mind as well:  Lupin and Sirius.
 Lupin isn't terribly forthcoming with his emotions
(except for that hug of course), but something about
his receptivity draws Harry out.  Sirius's own
emotions are very close to the surface and Harry opens
up to him in ways he doesn't to anyone else.

Weaver panicked:

>Are you trying to imply that the Potterverse is NOT
REAL?  
>That it's just a figment of JKR's IMAGINATION???  You
must be crazy!  
>::anxious face:: It *is* real, right?  ...right?!?

<soothing voice>  Of course it's real.  Come on back
to the ward now.

Amy Z
who lives there too

P.S. For off-topic comments on Peter Shaffer's Mozart,
follow me to OTChatter

--------------------------------------------------------
 Hedwig helped herself to some of Neville's
cornflakes.
           -Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
--------------------------------------------------------


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Apr 11 02:50:10 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 02:50:10 -0000
Subject: SHIP:  LOLLIPOPs & Taking The Trelawney Challenge (WAS Trelawney and still 
In-Reply-To: <023e01c1d0e3$50477b20$9330c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a92tl2+kkrl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37695

Good Heavens!  This fine post has just been *sitting* out here for 
weeks and no one has taken up the challenge to find some romance for 
Professor Trelawney?  

Well, it's an ugly job, but someone has to do it.  ;-)

****************

Tabouli wrote:

>I have yet to witness a ship which rustles up some romance for the 
>slender, sultry Sibyll.  Come now, listmembers, even Wormtail has 
>had some action lately.  Don't skinny fortune-telling frauds deserve 
>love too?  

Funny you should ask.  

>From time to time, it has occurred to me that Trelawney really ought 
to have a love interest.  I mean, other minor female characters seem 
to manage little romantic adventures.  There's Florence, who was 
definitely kissing someone behind the greenhouse.  There's Bertha, 
who got to watch Florence kissing someone, which is the next best 
thing, I guess.  And Bertha probably thought she was going out on a 
date with Wormtail in GoF, so we can count that as romance that, uh, 
didn't work out for her.  Even Lily wound up with James (and yes, I'm 
lumping Lily in with the other minor female characters here because 
she only has a few lines, most of which consist of pleading for her 
life).  And according to Porphyria, even Gran may have felt her blood 
boil over Lucius Malfoy.

And then there is poor, dear, spindly Professor Trelawney.  Sybill 
Trelawney, who isn't ever described as unattractive or anything.  (I 
mean, she's graceful enough to glide instead of just clomping around 
the castle, right?)  Poor Sybill, who dines alone in her solitary 
tower.  Poor Sybill, who probably doesn't even want to *bother* with 
romance because her crystal ball tells her all wizards are cads 
anyway.  

Actually, there's reason to believe that Trelawney has had a romantic 
interest in the past.  See, I think Trelawney has been pursuing Snape 
lately, perhaps hoping to re-kindle what they once shared.  Heck, 
their romance might go back many years, even back to Snape's DE 
days.  It is quite possible that Snape loved not Lily, but 
*Trelawney*.  But first, a detour through the Voldemort years.

We all know about and have speculated endlessly about Professor 
Trelawney's first real prediction.  In PoA, Fudge tells us that 
Dumbledore had "a number of useful spies" and "one of them tipped him 
off" that Voldemort was after the Potters.  It is entirely possible, 
I think, that Trelawney's first prediction was simply that Voldemort 
was after the Potters, and that this prediction was the sole source 
of Dumbledore's information.  

Why is that?  Well, Dumbledore didn't really do all he could do to 
protect the Potters if he truly believed Voldemort was a threat to 
them, did he?  I mean, if Dumbledore had reliable, first-hand 
information, he could have given the Potters safe haven at Hogwarts, 
where Voldemort would never attack them.  Dumbledore also could have 
been the Potters' Secretkeeper himself.  Instead, he cooked up this 
wacky Fidelius Charm plan and, though suspecting there was a spy in 
his organization, just left it up to the Potters and Sirius to go off 
on their own and perform this complex charm.  Not smart, I think.

So there must be *some* reason Dumbledore did not take the threat to 
the Potters as seriously as he might have.  That reason could be that 
the source of the information was one of Trelawney's predictions.  

Now, I figure that if Dumbledore had been present when Trelawney made 
that prediction (and if her voice changed, etc), he would have taken 
it quite seriously indeed.  But perhaps he heard about this 
prediction second-hand -- through his useful DE spy Snape.  Maybe 
Snape reported that he was with Trelawney and she made this 
prediction, and Dumbledore discounted it a bit.  After all, by this 
point, Trelawney had no track record at all with real predictions.

Why would Dumbledore discount it, and why would Snape be in a 
position to hear one of Trelawney's real predictions in the first 
place?  Well, that's where the romance comes in.

Snape and Trelawney are both important characters in the series, yet 
they have almost no interaction.  This is so even though they sit 
*right next to each other* at Christmas dinner in PoA:  "And 
[Dumbledore] did indeed draw a chair in midair with his wand, which 
revolved for a few seconds before falling with a thud between 
Professors Snape and McGonagall."  

Indeed, the moment that Dumbledore seats Trelawney between Snape and 
McGonagall, McGonagall becomes waspish with Trelawney.  During 
Christmas dinner, no less. Snape, on the other hand, doesn't converse 
with either McGonagall or Trelawney for the rest of the dinner.

Could it be that McGonagall dislikes Trelawney not because McGonagall 
dislikes Divination, but because she doesn't approve of Trelawney's 
sly efforts to lure Snape to the North Tower?  After all, Trelawney 
and Snape do appear to be a match.  Both have dimly-lit classrooms, 
with Trelawney preferring to keep the curtains closed and the lamps 
draped, and Snape teaching in a dungeon described as "creepy."  Both 
of them glide, and both speak dramatically, with Snape's voice 
described as silky and Trelawney's described as misty.  

Then, of course, there is the fact that Trelawney chose to doll 
herself up in *green sequins* for the Christmas dinner.  Really, 
now.  Can she be more obvious than wearing a flashy outfit in Snape's 
house colors?  She's practically *chasing* Snape there, isn't she?  
Oh, sure, one could say she wore green for the holiday.  But isn't it 
more likely that she chose green in a last-ditch effort to re-kindle 
what she once had with her dear Severus?  

Also, Trelawney seems to have some disdain for magical specialties 
other than Divination:  "Many witches and wizards, talented though 
they are in the areas of loud bangs and smells and sudden 
disappearings, are yet unable to penetrate the veiled mysteries of 
the future."  She seems most unimpressed with Transfiguration and 
Charms.  Yet she does *not* criticize the fine art of brewing 
potions.  Well, she certainly wouldn't want to say anything negative 
about Potions that might get back to the Potions Master she so 
desperately desires, now would she? Similarly, Snape sneers at Charms 
and Transfiguration in his first Potions class speech in PS/SS:  "As 
there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly 
believe this is magic."  He doesn't slam Divination, though, does 
he?  Professional courtesy?  I think not.

*********

Now, where does all of this fit into LOLLIPOPS?  

Right smack in the middle, that's where.   See, the central premise 
of LOLLIPOPS, as we all know, is that Snape loved Lily.  But where is 
it written that Snape is a one-witch man?  I haven't seen a thing in 
the LOLLIPOPS backstory or canon that means that Snape loved Lily to 
the exclusion of Sibyll.  I think he loved Lily (which explains his 
dislike of Harry), but he loved Trelawney, too.  There was more than 
enough Severus to go around for all the witches, I think.  

It all just makes sense.  In fact, I think it is high time to 
establish a deck on LOLLIPOPS devoted to those who believe that Snape 
had a bevy of beautiful magical women.

Cindy (relieved that she doesn't have to find her own SHIP and can 
simply stow away on LOLLIPOPS)




From silvercat at qnet.com  Wed Apr 10 02:44:49 2002
From: silvercat at qnet.com (Silvercat)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:44:49 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crouch Sr
References: <a8rtdl+rcm1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CB3A721.F32CEA0F@qnet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37696

Okay, before I start, let me just say a few things; this is my first
post, so hi everyone.  And I've only read GoF once, rather quickly (I
don't have it yet, boohoo).

charisjulia wrote:
> Well, take the granting of new powers to the Aurors. Powers to kill.
> Ermm, really, how can I put this delicately? Errmm, well, hmmm,
> but. . . *look who's talking*?! And after all there was a war going
> on. To say the truth I had been rather taking it for granted that
> there must have been killings and was quite surprised that the fact
> was referred to with such a scandalised manner. 

But was it really a war? How big of a group was the DEs?  It seemed more
like a sinister conspiracy to me.  Although if they formed the Aurors
just to fight the DEs, it could be considered a very big deal.  I can't
really think of a good comparision...  Apparently the WW tries to take
the moral highroad.  After all, death is very, very permament.  You
can't get information from a corpse.  You can't rehabilitate a corpse. 
And (for the more upset people) you can't punish a corpse.

charisjulia wrote:
> And then there's everyone's reaction to Crouch's handling of his
> son's crimes: Hermione whispers "Did Crouch try and get his son off?"-
> -What, was he supposed to do that? Evidently as the truth apparently
> appalls Harry: "He gave his own son to the Dementors?" he asked
> quietly.

Remember these are teenagers.  They would want their parents to get them
off.  They haven't had to deal with the hard facts of life yet for the
most part.  The Dementors severely affected Harry, and both he and
Hermione are very kind; they wouldn't want to punish anyone that way.
Did any of the adults act surprised?

charisjulia wrote:
> The fact that Barty Jr just happened to have a father in high
> places should not affect the enforcement of justice. Of course in
> this case it in fact * did* and the outcome was not very advantageous
> for poor Barty. That is of course equally unacceptable. However
> that's another matter altogether and one that rather deals with the
> ohsoveryeasily corruptible law system the wizarding society has
> working (or not working) here. 

But pretty darn realistic.  He did have way too much power.  However, it
was a desperate situation, they didn't have time for checks and
balances.

charisjulia wrote:
> Both of them are, it would seem, grey characters. (though the jury is
> still out on Bagman's general innocence) I like that. It makes a bit
> of a break in the Good Guys/Bad Guys game and hopefully indicates
> more such characters to come as Harry moves further afield and out of
> his close circle of friends. Now all we need to find out is that
> Crouch Jr was a bad egg of Ravenclaw (he's not really ambitious, just
> extremely vindictive and of course devilishly clever) and there you
> have it! A precedent is set!

Amen on all counts.

charisjulia wrote:
> To be honest I never really liked the
> way Crouch treated Percy, at least if his behaviour at the Quidditch
> World Cup is any indication. I mean, he hasn't even gone to the
> trouble of learning his own personal assistant's real name for crying
> out loud! 

I've been thinking about that.  Now, remember I've only read the book
once, but...
What if Crouch is confused at that point and mistaking Percy for someone
else?  A former assistant or something.  One would expect Mr. Weasley to
say something, but he can't know *everyone* in the MoM.  It's
foreshadowing for the later scenes.

charisjulia wrote:
> Remember Sirius's comment about looking at how a man treats
> his subordinates to understand what he's really like? Crouch's whole
> attitude towards Percy in the scene borders on the dismissive. After
> all he's in Percy's environment, surrounded by Percy's friends and
> family, he could give him the time of day or at least drink the lousy
> tea! Percy's obviously bending over backwards (or hunching over
> frontwards as the case may be) to please him and he can't even manage
> anything more than "mild surprise" at seeing him. And I bet Crouch
> never even read the cauldron report . . . <sigh>

But if he's confused or whatever, he could just be mildly surprised. 
Maybe the original Weatherby could never be found outside the office. 
Pet theories with no evidence...

DG wrote:
> But to me, the "I have no son!" is Sr's attempt to try and come to 
> terms with what he has had to do. It's a healing thing, a 
> rationalization thing. As black a snake as Sr knows Jr to be, it 
> still cannot be easy to send him off like that.

I don't know about healing.  His later actions definately show he feels
guilty.  I think it was just basic denial, trying to divorce his
feelings from what he *had* to do.  Too bad it failed.

Petra wrote:
> It's possible that the short time he spent in Azkaban was enough to 
> complete (if not begin)  his "going over to the dark side" since 
> there's certainly nothing holding him back - his mother was no Lily 
> Potter and his father has disowned him.  It'd be an interesting bit of 
> self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak.  Imprison the not entirely 
> innocent and he transforms into what he was accused of being.  This 
> could also support Voldemort as a father substitute.

Ew.  I don't think *anyone* could consider Voldemort a father, of any
type.

> Consider this: if Crouch Jr. was already a full-fledged DE when he was 
> caught, wouldn't his denial of Voldemort at the trial make him less 
> than Voldemort's faithful servant whose loyalty has NEVER wavered?

But were there any of those?  Didn't the ones who stayed out of Azkaban
do it mostly by saying they were controlled?

Barb wrote:
> You make a good point.  It is true that in the Pensieve scene, 
> Barty, Jr. consistently denies any wrongdoing, while his co-
> defendant (Mrs. Lestrange?) speaks like a heretic about to be burned 
> who refuses to recant her apostacy.  (I also think other Inquisition-
> type similarities to this tribunal are completely intentional.)

But isn't he younger than her?  He isn't quite as fanatical and much
more desperate to stay out. (perhaps heard stories from his dad about
how bad it is?)  Could just be a difference in personality. 

On the whole Dark Mark thing, I think it was a very unwise idea of
Voldemort's.  I mean, brand everyone so anyone can see?  When you and
your group are being hunted down?  Very, very arrogant and overconfidant
(which about sums him up).
-- 
Silvercat / Phoenix - 

So what do you need? Besides a miracle.
Guns. Lots of guns.
-Tank and Neo, Matrix 
_________________________
http://blackflame.topcities.com - Silvercat's Menagerie, a vast array of
mostly disconnected stuff






From silvercat at qnet.com  Wed Apr 10 03:05:16 2002
From: silvercat at qnet.com (Silvercat)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:05:16 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why do Muggles get a capital letter?
References: <200204081311.g38DBGH19499@mail7.bigmailbox.com>
Message-ID: <3CB3ABEC.9CEC99F1@qnet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37697

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> Why are there 'Muggles' and 'wizards'?  Why not 'muggles' and wizards, or
>  Muggles and 'Wizards'?  Surely it makes more sense to be consistent?
> 
> Given that the wizarding community is (I think...) much smaller than the
>  Muggle community, wouldn't it make more sense to capitalise the word 'Wizard'
> instead, as wizards are rarer?

Humans rarely capitalize themselves. It's strangers that get the special
attention. (Like most native names just mean "the people")

grey wolf c wrote:
> Anyway, getting to the point, I think Muggles deserves a capital letter 
> in the same way "French" or "German" or "Japanese:" it's a way of 
> indicating that they're from a different culture/country/whatever. 
> Wizard is not (normally) capitalized because it refers to oneself, like 
> "human" or "person". I'm not 100% sure, but isn't "Warlock" 
> capitalized? That would indicate that Warlock is the formal name of 
> wizards is, as a counter part of "Muggle".

There are languages that don't capitalize other languages, but the point
holds.  Doesn't Warlock only refer to males? Just another word for
wizard?  Hmmm, why do they use witch and wizard, instead of witch and
warlock, etc? (Besides to keep the Christian fundamentalists of JKR's
back)

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> OTOH, most of the book is shown from the wizarding POV, so maybe they
>  refer to Muggles with a capital because they're seen as a separate species from
>  us (ie, we capitalise 'Wookiee' but not 'human').  Maybe the wizards don't
> consider Muggles to be the same species, despite the fact that they obviously
> can interbreed --
> 
> (thinking of dimly remembered biology lessons here... am I wrong in assuming
>  that, loosely, individuals are only considered the same species if they can
> interbreed?  I may be completely on the wrong track...)

Horses and donkeys aren't the same species, but they can interbreed. 
But I think only the same species can have kids that can reproduce.

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> I'm
> thinking of ancient wizarding families considering Muggles as barely human,
> as beneath their dignity, something less than a dog or a cat (given that
> Animagi can *become* cats and dogs).

And bugs and sharks... I don't think that's it.

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> (Digression: on that same track, *can* an Animagi transform into a Muggle?
>  Maybe Snapeykins is an Animagi and his form is that of an old crotchety Muggle
>  man...  ::giggling:: Maybe Draco Malfoy can, and that explains his bitterness
> towards the less magically-gifted...)

Why would they want to though?  It seems like they get to choose their
form.

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> Cats and dogs, though, are obviously not of the same species as us, and they
> don't get a capital letter either.  Maybe it's just *sentient* other species
> that are capitalised (Wookiees, Bothans, Ithorians, Sullustans,  -- Vulcans,
> if you don't like those or even just Martians all get capitals)  BUT they all
> bear no physical similarity to humans.  Muggles and wizards are the same
> physically: my present view is that it's just an extra gene or two thrown up
> randomly that gives us magic.

I don't think so... Most Star Trek species are just humans with funky
foreheads or noses.  They usually even have red blood.  Betazeds just
have black irises (and telepathy). And they all can interbreed with
humans.

So wizards were originally mutants?  Maybe it's Muggles that were
originally different.  They seem to imply that magic was much more
common earlier, or maybe it's just me.  What's that one syndrome where
you have three genes in one spot instead of two - Down syndrome?

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> (Digression: *does* that make them + us separate species?  Considering
> chimpanzees are only about five genes removed from us...)

I don't think that's right.  We have 28(?) chromosomes.  I think chimps
have 40-some pairs.

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> Oops, more ideas coming -- house-elves don't get capitals either.  Is that
> because they're considered inferior (like cats and dogs)?  But then, even
> goblins don't get capitals.  (--Can someone tell me if they're given 'being'
> classification by Fantastic Beasts?  My copy's downstairs...)

I think they are.  They aren't liked much.  But aren't Muggles
considered inferior?

GulPlum wrote:
> I don't think it has anything to do with English usage. What I 
> suspect it has a lot to do with is intellectual property law (stand 
> up Ms Stouffer) - note that almost all JKR-invented terminology or 
> words with a specific meaning within the Potterverse are capitalised: 
> Transfigure, Apparate, Muggle, etc, etc.

Yeah, that's true and a good point... But no fun...

Darnit, I should check my mail more... most of my points get covered...

-- 
Silvercat / Phoenix - 

So what do you need? Besides a miracle.
Guns. Lots of guns.
-Tank and Neo, Matrix 
_________________________
http://blackflame.topcities.com - Silvercat's Menagerie, a vast array of
mostly disconnected stuff






From jmmears at prodigy.net  Thu Apr 11 03:27:34 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 03:27:34 -0000
Subject: Ginny's inconsistant eyes
Message-ID: <a92vr6+gtq8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37698

I was listening to CoS (Jim Dale version) yesterday and in Chapter 
3, The Burrow, he read, "On the third landing, a door stood ajar.  
Harry just caught sight of a pair of bright *GREEN* eyes staring at 
hime before it closed with a snap."  For some reason this caught my 
attention and I actually played it again to be sure.  I have both 
the US and UK versions of CoS, and in both of them Ginny's eyes are 
brown.

Admittedly, this is not of earth-shattering importance, but has 
anyone got an explanation for this?  I checked the Lexicon and the 
archives and found nothing on this subject.  Does anyone have the 
UK/Stephen Fry version of CoS, and if so, are her eyes green in that 
one, too?

Is there a prize for finding a new inconsistancy between books and 
audio at this late date?

Jo Serenadust, perplexed nitpicker




From elfundeb at aol.com  Thu Apr 11 04:17:24 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:17:24 EDT
Subject: Snape the Control Freak (WAS: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #2 
Message-ID: <181.6941aa2.29e66854@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37699

In a message dated 4/8/2002 9:47:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
rusalka at ix.netcom.com writes:


> I think Snape's a control-freak.  What's worse, he's a control freak 
> whose life, in many important ways, is out of his control.  There 
> are a lot of people out there who have the power to destroy him on a 
> whim: Dumbledore, Moody, Voldemort, possibly other Aurors and DEs 
> who know his history.  But the one thing he *can* be in control of 
> is his classroom.  He's in charge, and making the students toe the 
> line is part of that.  He's different from Percy in that respect; I 
> don't think Snape loves rules for their own sake, or labors under 
> the illusion that as long as you follow the rules bad things won't 
> happen.  I think he just uses rules to assert his control.
> 
> That's possibly why Neville an Hermione make him so nuts, too.  They 
> both undermine his control of the classroom: Neville, by creating 
> chaos through his incompetence, and Hermione by conspicuous displays 
> 



I completely agree with your control-freak assessment. Moreover, I think 
that's the key to the answer to Dr. Nel's question "Who is Snape working 
for?" 

 I can't imagine any career less suited to Snape's temperament than being a 
Death-Eater.  Becoming a DE requires you to become completely subservient to 
Voldemort.  You must grovel at his feet like a "most devoted servant"  (look 
how Crouch Jr. grovels obsequiously even when Voldemort isn't around, not to 
mention every DE summoned to the rebirthing including the usually swaggering 
Lucius Malfoy who thanks Voldemort for his mercy - ugh!) and wait for 
Voldemort to reward or punish you at his whim.  I can't imagine Snape 
willingly engaging in this type of self-humiliation.  But he must've done it, 
at least for some period of time. 

Now, I do think that in exchange for their total obedience on important 
matters, Voldemort gave them powers that must have been intended to give them 
the illusion of control.  I think the Muggle-killings were part of this.   
While I think Voldemort masterminded and utterly controlled major strategies, 
as he did with his rebirthing, I suspect he gave them free reign over 
Muggles, who had no strategic importance in the WW (Arthur Weasley says half 
the Muggle killings were for fun, and Crouch Jr. speaks very contemptuously 
of Muggle sport), both as an act of bitterness over his childhood and father 
and in order to give them the illusion that they were in control.    Snape 
may have participated in this, indeed he may have been expected to in order 
to prove his toughness for the job (though I tend to envision him spending 
most of his time brewing Veritaserum), but he's too smart not to have 
realized very quickly that participating in pointless Muggle killings isn't 
any kind of control worth having.   No wonder he became disillusioned with 
the DE's. 

What amazes me, though,  is how he could ever have been persuaded to join 
them in the first place.  Could he not have known what it would be like, that 
their only purpose was to serve Voldemort?  Did Voldemort lure him with false 
promises?   Though I hold to the idea that it was general disillusionment 
with the 'good' side's apparent failure to adhere to principles that pushed 
him in the direction his Slytherin gang was heading (still confused as to the 
name of this theory), it must have taken an enormous amount of 
disillusionment - way more than the Prank could offer, or L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., 
or both.  

There's undoubtedly tons we still don't know, but I'll throw out one other 
possible source of disappointment that I haven't noticed anyone else mention. 
 Might Snape also have coveted the Head Boy position that James got?  We know 
he was ambitious, and he was certainly smart (how else could he have known 
seventh-year curses when he arrived at Hogwarts?) so it seems logical that he 
would aspire to be Head Boy.  Based on today's posts he may be hopelessly 
lacking in some of the skills necessary to obtain the position, but he might 
have believed that top marks (at least in Potions) and toeing the line on 
rules ought to qualify one for that kind of position of authority, or at 
least give him the edge over an unrepentant rule-breaker like James.  I can't 
see the failure of Dumbledore to publicly punish James and Sirius for the 
Prank as the catalyst because he would've realized that there could have been 
private punishment, so I think that episode just festered in his memory.   
But giving the highest position in the school to James must have been, to 
Snape, an unmistakable signal that not even Dumbledore sets any store by the 
rules; instead, it's arrogance (as he describes James in PoA Ch. 14) and 
athletic talent and the right friends that win honor and recognition.   
That's the sort of thing that might make me listen to the DE recruiters, if I 
were Snape.

Oh, and IMO Snape doesn't want the DADA job, or at least he shouldn't want 
it.  Why would the Potions Master want to take on a reportedly jinxed 
position to teach a subject that involves foolish wand-waving?   The title, 
which IIRC has not been used to describe any other professor, or Dumbledore, 
indicates that he's a recognized expert in his field.  He is clearly not an 
example of "those who can, do; those who can't, teach."  But he probably 
knows a lot of things that could be useful now that Voldemort is back; in 
fact, even the simple Expelliarmus spell Snape taught them all has turned out 
to be quite valuable, so perhaps he'll find an opportunity to demonstrate 
those DADA skills regardless.  Maybe he'll give Harry tutorials like Lupin 
did.  I think I'd enjoy those chapters.


Debbie, realizing that there are probably as many Snape backstories as 
listmembers and proposing a file (an online file, not the cardboard thing I 
have stuffed with things like LOLLIPOPS and Big Bangs and a mysterious 
humanoid named George) containing summaries of all the various manifestos 
that have been developed over the last few months but that I could never 
catch up to





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 08:03:07 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:03:07 -0000
Subject: My Love of JKR
Message-ID: <a93fvr+id04@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37700

About a year ago, my niece came begging to me. It was between her 
birthday and Christmas and she wanted copy of the latest Harry Potter 
book. Like many adults, I thought the Harry Potter novels were 'kids 
books' but didn't object to anything that got kids to read.

My sister (her loss) was concerned about all she heard about 'Harry 
Potter being Satanic' and asked if I could read the books to check 
that they were acceptable for her kids and that was my downfall.

A year later I have read all 4 books at least 20 times and went broke 
buying copies of all 4 books for over 10 nephews and nieces. Thanks 
to JKR I have a family of readers who beg their uncle for books for 
Christmas and all of us want the 5th book YESTERDAY!!!

Arguments of Ginny/Harry Hermione/Harry Hermione/Ron aside, I have a 
hard time remembering it's only the 4th book and there's 3 more years 
for Harry and friends.

At the end of Goblet of Fire, Harry, Ron, & Hermione are all only 14 
(Ginny only 13) and all rumors have Harry's adventures continuing 
through 7 years of Hogwarts and climaxing in the 7th.

A few rantings:
PLEASE JKR

1) Hurry with Book 5! We're all going through Harry withdrawl!

2) No characters going to the dark side. The entire western world was 
raised on Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Please no corrupting of 
the main characters (or their families)

3) It's TOO EARLY to match up 13 & 14 year olds. As this is a 
grownups club, How many of you met your future spouses at that age?

4) PLEASE STOP THE DEATH PREDICTIONS!!! Harry does not have to die at 
the climax! He can live happily ever after! How would you have 
handled knowing at 14 that you would save the world and be famous, 
but by the way... you're going to die at age 18, so don't bother 
getting too connected to anyone... or falling in love... or anything 
that makes life worth living...

Done with my ranting... Sorry

Please JKR! Release BOOK 5 SOON!!!!!

Uncmark




From delineate at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 11 02:29:47 2002
From: delineate at hotmail.com (kwilson1003)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 02:29:47 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and evil/ Lupin as werewolf
In-Reply-To: <d1.16d8ae17.29e606e3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a92ser+njlj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37702

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> The Wolfsbane potion renders him a 'harmless' wolf, which rather 
implies it 
> would be safe to give him refuge on one's hearth-rug. I wonder if 
it would? 

I have been thinking about the Wolfsbane potion and how it renders 
Lupin a 'harmless' wolf.  Considering that Wolfsbane is poisonous to 
werewolves - I thought that it must work by somehow poisoning the 
werewolf into a docile and submissive form.  I guess similar to 
Chemotherapy.  Lupin seems to be very ill each month (much more ill 
than he is on the day he resigns where is  packing etc, after 
forgetting to take the potion the evening before).  With Lupin's 
character, he probably wouldn't go into details about how the potion 
affects him (and besides he is rather pressed for time when he is 
explaining all to Harry and co).

If a poisoned werewolf is too ill to move, would he be a 'harmless' 
wolf?  Maybe he doesn't have the strength to bite hard enough??  
Dunno..  Just for pure speculation - some months Lupin seems to be 
more ill than others..  Do you think that Snape has been attempting a 
little experimentation with his potion brewing?  I think that from a 
technical point of view, Snape would find brewing the Wolfsbane 
potion and watching the effects of it fascinating.  Not sure if this 
has been discussed before.

Karen





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Thu Apr 11 10:18:08 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:18:08 -0000
Subject: Prefects paid
In-Reply-To: <a92eq4+sk7e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a93nt0+26g6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37703

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> > Hermione's going to be a prefect. That already means she has her 
> > *own* private bedroom. (Percy said something to the effect of 
> > prefects having their own rooms in book #1...) 

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> Could you please find this reference?  I don't believe it actually 
> says that.  Percy indicates that there are compartments on the 
> Hogwarts Express that have been set aside for prefects, but there 
> has always been every indication that even when a student is 
> appointed a prefect, he/she continues to live the same dorm-mates 
> they've had since first year.  Which only makes sense; if the 
> prefects are supposed to augment the instructors by being their 
eyes 
> and ears when the instructors can't be present, it would be 
> difficult for them to do that if they are not in the same dorm.  
> There are numerous fanfics that put prefects and especially Head 
Boy 
> and Head Girl in separate quarters, but we should remember that 
> we're discussing canon here, not fanon.
> 

Finwitch wrote:

> > Prefects might get *paid* for all I know(10 Galleons a week?), 
and 
> > Ron might take on teaching job(teaching first-years things wizard-
> > borns take for granted) or work at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes. And 
> > Harry would give them quite a Wedding Gift to live on for 
> > starters...
> 
--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
 
> Now, I'm afraid this is getting more and more unlikely the longer 
> this goes on.  Prefects being paid?  I believe if that were true 
> Percy would have been paid as Head Boy as well, possibly paid more 
> than prefects, which would have been something else he could have 
> lorded over the other people he knew, as he lorded over them the 
> fact that he was a prefect and then Head Boy.  The Weasleys being 
> rather cash-poor all the time, Percy getting paid for going to 
> school would have been a topic of conversation, especially if Ron 
> stood a chance of borrowing money from him.  None of this 
happened.  
> I'm afraid that when you propose a theory, you have to be prepared 
> for all of the implications of the theory, and this just does not 
> wash at all.


Given all the talk about prefects and how they might be appointed, I 
thought I should mention how prefects were appointed at my school - 
and also at my friends schools - in England. I have only ever heard 
of prefects being appointed by teachers, never by the students 
themselves. I have certainly never heard of them being paid. The 
reality it is that they act as "dogsbodies" doing many of 
the "leadership" style tasks that teachers did not want to get 
involved with. For instance stopping kids dropping litter, making 
sure kids don't go to places where they were not meant to be. The 
reward for being a prefect, is in the honour of being asked to be 
one, and then being able to put on your CV that you were one. (I also 
know of schools though where every student in the 7th Year was a 
prefect as not many kids stayed on after their O'Levels/ GCSEs, so in 
that scenario, not even much of an honour).

Again, whilst this is only an example of my school, the prefects did 
have their own "common room" (I don't know if this is a phrase which 
translates out of the UK, but their own special room), but, they were 
still fully fledged members of their houses. The room was their only 
additional priviledge. 

My school was a day school so there was no issue of giving prefects 
their own separate bedrooms. I think though that this would be 
unlikely at Hogwarts. So much emphasis has been placed on the Houses 
of Grffindor etc being like families, that to change the cosy little 
dormitories that the students have been accustomed to, would surely 
change the dynamics too much - and create animosty - in a way that 
allowing them to have a more luxurious bathroom woud not.

For prefects (and Head Boy) think unpaid dogsbody - but what an 
honour!

Ali

(who was never a prefect, and has no regrets!)




From jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk  Thu Apr 11 10:21:39 2002
From: jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk (jaymzhuk)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:21:39 -0000
Subject: snape's kitten
Message-ID: <a93o3j+5ocq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37704


With all this talk of Snape having a soft side, I couldn't resist 
building my own hut on the hills around theory bay:

THE SHRIEKING SHACK (Teacher's Hard Exterior Shrouds Heart-Rendered 
Interior - Even Kindness If Nobody Gazing: Snape Has a Cute Kitten).

I don't think it would last long against canon fire, but couldn't 
stop myself.

James




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 10:41:50 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:41:50 -0000
Subject: Why do Muggles get a capital letter?
In-Reply-To: <3CB3ABEC.9CEC99F1@qnet.com>
Message-ID: <a93p9e+ulap@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37705

> "... Weaver ..." wrote:
> > Why are there 'Muggles' and 'wizards'?  Why not 'muggles' and 
wizards, or
> >  Muggles and 'Wizards'?  Surely it makes more sense to be 
consistent?
> > 
> > Given that the wizarding community is (I think...) much smaller 
than the
> >  Muggle community, wouldn't it make more sense to capitalise the 
word 'Wizard'
> > instead, as wizards are rarer?

I figured it to be a nationality - after all, in many ways the wizard-
world is like a separate country: government, currency, boarders, 
culture...

> grey wolf c wrote:
> > Anyway, getting to the point, I think Muggles deserves a capital 
letter 
> > in the same way "French" or "German" or "Japanese:" it's a way of 
> > indicating that they're from a different 
culture/country/whatever. 
> > Wizard is not (normally) capitalized because it refers to 
oneself, like 
> > "human" or "person". I'm not 100% sure, but isn't "Warlock" 
> > capitalized? That would indicate that Warlock is the formal name 
of 
> > wizards is, as a counter part of "Muggle".

Silvercat:
 
> There are languages that don't capitalize other languages, but the 
point
> holds.  Doesn't Warlock only refer to males? Just another word for
> wizard?  Hmmm, why do they use witch and wizard, instead of witch 
and
> warlock, etc? (Besides to keep the Christian fundamentalists of 
JKR's
> back)

Seems to me that Warlock is some sort of title or achievement. Like 
Dumbledore's... Chief Warlock, Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand 
Sorceror... Did I get it right? I wonder if some of these titles 
proves more meaningful in Order of Phoenix than we may think. 
Something in the Chocolate Frog Card did (his association with 
Nicholas Flamel, and Philosopher's Stone)-- and speaking of Cards, 
does Ron have Cards on Lily, James and Harry Potter in his collection 
of 500?


Silvercat:
> I don't think so... Most Star Trek species are just humans with 
funky
> foreheads or noses.  They usually even have red blood.  Betazeds 
just
> have black irises (and telepathy). And they all can interbreed with
> humans.

And Vulcans have the oddity of Green Blood, but the point holds.
 
> So wizards were originally mutants?  Maybe it's Muggles that were
> originally different.  They seem to imply that magic was much more
> common earlier, or maybe it's just me.  What's that one syndrome 
where
> you have three genes in one spot instead of two - Down syndrome?

Not genes, chromosomes. Down syndrome,  yes, there's 3 21-chromosomes 
instead of 2.

> "... Weaver ..." wrote:
> > (Digression: *does* that make them + us separate species?  
Considering
> > chimpanzees are only about five genes removed from us...)

Silvercat:
 
> I don't think that's right.  We have 28(?) chromosomes.  I think 
chimps
> have 40-some pairs.

Actually... Chimps have a difference in chromosome-construction. They 
have one pair less than humans, because with humans, those genes are 
divided into *two* chromosomes, but with Chimps, there's just one 
chromosome. The change is incredibly small, something that requires a 
single mutation. Slightly more than with Down Syndrome, though.

And Down syndrome isn't the *only* mutation in Chromosome-level. 
Others are less noticeable, though. Ordinarily it might be XX for a 
girl, and XY for a boy. However, X-none is known, as well as XXY, 
XXXY and XXXYY... X-chromosome is a necessity for embryo to become 
existent, Y-chromosome only makes it male (with less genetic material 
than any other chromosome).

But back to the topic, I don't think magical ability is genetical any 
more than musical talent.

> "... Weaver ..." wrote:
> > Oops, more ideas coming -- house-elves don't get capitals 
either.  Is that
> > because they're considered inferior (like cats and dogs)?  But 
then, even
> > goblins don't get capitals.  (--Can someone tell me if they're 
given 'being'
> > classification by Fantastic Beasts?  My copy's downstairs...)
> 
> I think they are.  They aren't liked much.  But aren't Muggles
> considered inferior?

Goblins are considered 'persons', Vampires are also, but werewolves 
are beasts by recent definition, merpeople and centaurs as beasts by 
their choise on not wanting to belong same category with Vampires. I 
wonder what Lupin thinks of *that* characterisation? Vampires are 
persons but werewolves are not? Definately not agreed. I don't recall 
what the book thought of giants, though...

-- Finwitch





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Apr 11 11:23:01 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:23:01 -0000
Subject: Snape the Control Freak (WAS: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #2
In-Reply-To: <181.6941aa2.29e66854@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a93rml+47u0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37706

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb at a... wrote:
>  I can't imagine any career less suited to Snape's temperament 
than being a 
> Death-Eater.  Becoming a DE requires you to become completely 
subservient to 
> Voldemort.  You must grovel at his feet like a "most devoted 
servant"  (look 
> how Crouch Jr. grovels obsequiously even when Voldemort isn't 
around, not to 
> mention every DE summoned to the rebirthing including the usually 
swaggering 
> Lucius Malfoy who thanks Voldemort for his mercy - ugh!) and wait 
for 
> Voldemort to reward or punish you at his whim.  I can't imagine 
Snape 
> willingly engaging in this type of self-humiliation.  But he 
must've done it, 
> at least for some period of time. 

<snip some good stuff about Voldemort using Muggle-killings to give 
his DEs the illusion of control>

> What amazes me, though,  is how he could ever have been persuaded 
to join 
> them in the first place.  Could he not have known what it would be 
like, that 
> their only purpose was to serve Voldemort?  Did Voldemort lure him 
with false 
> promises?  

I think Voldemort must've had a really good recruiting pitch, 
individually tailored to each person he was trying to pull in.  We 
know Tom Riddle was charming and good at manipulating people.  When 
dealing with arrogant aristocrats like Lucius Malfor or resentful 
control-freaks like Snape, I'm sure he didn't say "come and be my 
faithful, groveling servant."  He would've figured out what they 
wanted, and promised them they could have it, and he must've made 
those promises *really* convincing.  Snape, no doubt, was offered a 
place where he would be respected and appreciated, where his talents 
would win him the advancement he deserved; not to meantion a new 
world order where obnoxious Gryffindor jocks who try to feed people 
to werewolves get the punishment *they* deserve.  None of that "he's 
a popular Quidditch jock, so we'll let him get away with attempted 
murder" nonsense.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From pennylin at swbell.net  Thu Apr 11 11:41:22 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 06:41:22 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny's inconsistant eyes
References: <a92vr6+gtq8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004a01c1e14d$ce3b2ac0$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37707

Hi --

Jo Serenadust contends she's found a new Flint:

<<<I was listening to CoS (Jim Dale version) yesterday and in Chapter 
3, The Burrow, he read, "On the third landing, a door stood ajar.  
Harry just caught sight of a pair of bright *GREEN* eyes staring at 
hime before it closed with a snap."  For some reason this caught my 
attention and I actually played it again to be sure.  I have both 
the US and UK versions of CoS, and in both of them Ginny's eyes are 
brown.>>>>

Nope, nope.  I get credit for that one!  :--)  It's not in the Message Archives for this group but rather the Archives from our predecessor Yahoo Club days though.  Here's the link to my message #1203 of Yahoo Club from May 6, 2000:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/message/1203

Sorry, Jo!  

Penny



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From pennylin at swbell.net  Thu Apr 11 11:57:06 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 06:57:06 -0500
Subject: Hermione's Choice  (SHIP)
References: <a92eul+ubav@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005101c1e150$0079cc60$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37708

Hi --

I said:
>> Incidentally though, back to character development (or lack 
thereof), I guess I'd note that it seems to me that if Rowling's 
intent was simply to use the romance line as a minor "mood lightener" 
in an otherwise dark period in the series, I wonder why she would 
leave Hermione's romantic feelings so ambiguous.  I mean: why make 
Ron's interest so horribly obvious & leave Hermione's feelings such a 
wildcard?  Might it be conflict?  <g> >>>>>>>>>>

Ms_petra_pan responded with: 

<<<<<<<The vague end of GoF leaves us in the fog as to Hermione's true 
romantic inclinations, but not so in the rest of the book.  As I read 
each instance of Hermione's jealous reaction to Ron goggling at other 
girls / women / veelas, I thought "Aww...isn't that sweet...they both 
like each other but they're typical adolescents and don't know it 
yet.">>>>>>>>>>

As best I recall, Ron only oogles Fleur specifically (and, like Harry, the veela in general at the Quidditch World Cup, although in the case of the QWC, Hermione pulls *Harry* down to his chair & seems exasperated with *him* & not *Ron*).  <g>  As for Fleur though, Hermione despises Fleur from the very second she sees her, and this is *way* before Ron has *any* reaction to Fleur.  If you re-read the scene where the Beauxbatons students arrive at Hogwarts, you'll see what I mean.  Hermione takes an instantaneous dislike to her that is completely & totally unrelated to Ron's subsequent reaction to Fleur in the dining hall.  So, I think Hermione just dislikes Fleur in a general sense in any case and her friend Ron's reaction to Fleur just puts the icing on the cake so to speak.  OTOH, there is evidence beyond her kissing Harry at the end of GoF that suggests to me & other H/H shippers that she might have romantic interest in Harry.  

<<<<<<<Throughout all four of the books, Hermione doesn't pay the same kind of attention to the other boys, not Harry nor for that matter Viktor.>>>>>>

Not sure what you mean here.  She bickers with Ron, and that seems IMO to be their primary mode of communication.  When Harry & Ron were on the outs in GoF, she pays way more attention to Harry than to Ron (or at best equal, though it would seem that she spends more time with Harry than with Ron IMO).   
  
<<<<<Hermione has also never warmed to Ron's many objects of teenage 
passion but had no jealousy about Harry's sole crush, Cho.>>>>>>>

"Many objects of teenage passion?"  Did I miss some?  <g>  I thought it was just a general reaction to the Veela at the QWC (and again, Hermione seemed much more exasperated with Harry than with Ron) and Fleur.  If there are others, I'm sure not remembering it.

As for Cho, we're not sure really whether Ron or Hermione would know that Harry was crushing on Cho.  We know Harry reacts to seeing Cho at the QWC campsite & Ron seems to notice this .... but he might just think Harry thought she was pretty (didn't know it was a bit more than that in other words).  Hermione isn't even present when Harry tells Ron & Ginny that *Cho* turned him down.  Ginny says they were both turned down by girls & so Hermione knows that much ... but who knows if she's guessed it was Cho or not?  In any case, since Cho was clearly linked up with Cedric post-Ball (and possibly pre-Ball), Hermione might not have guessed there was any reason for jealousy.  :--)  She also might not be conscious of her own feelings for either boy for that matter.  

In that vein, I'd be very interested to hear more about Barb's "Krum as doppelganger for Harry theory".  

 Penny


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 12:18:35 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:18:35 -0000
Subject: Prefects paid
In-Reply-To: <a93nt0+26g6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a93uur+7irq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37709

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" <Ali at z...> wrote:

> 
> Given all the talk about prefects and how they might be appointed, 
I 
> thought I should mention how prefects were appointed at my school - 
> and also at my friends schools - in England. I have only ever heard 
> of prefects being appointed by teachers, never by the students 
> themselves. I have certainly never heard of them being paid. The 
> reality it is that they act as "dogsbodies" doing many of 
> the "leadership" style tasks that teachers did not want to get 
> involved with.

That's why I think they *should* be paid, being appointed by teachers 
like that.

The term prefect was translated with "valvoja-oppilas" - refering to 
their duty of watching other students, our student-representative of 
a group is "luottamus-oppilas" - referring to trust of the students. 
They represent the group in government of the student body, and if 
someone's not been at school, he or she can well call that student to 
ask about homework. So um - they're NOT prefects. They're student's 
trustees. Quite different concept, I'd say.

The term "oppilas-edustaja" refers to the 2 chosen to represent all 
students at schoolboard. (and also 2 to take their place if the 
actual representatives can't make it).

I never was one - and I have no regrets either. I *did* cast a vote, 
however.

But not having student-elected representatives, but instead a teacher-
headmaster dictatorship with no student-voice at all! Must say I 
don't question rule-breaking in that kind of circumstances, unless it 
harms someone or something. I wonder...

What if the Hogwarts students would have a demonstration against 
cruel treatment of animals in Potions and Transfiguration and refuse 
to participate these classes unless this wrong was corrected?
What if they'd refuse to obey just on say-so without a possibility to 
have a voice on the rules? All of them. Every single student would 
join in.

What would the staff do?

-- Finwitch





From jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk  Thu Apr 11 13:27:49 2002
From: jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk (James Handley)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:27:49 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prefects paid
In-Reply-To: <a93uur+7irq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204111414080.14222-100000@cslin-gps.leeds.ac.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 37710

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, finwitch wrote:

[prefects]

> They represent the group in government of the student body, and if
> someone's not been at school, he or she can well call that student to
> ask about homework. So um - they're NOT prefects. They're student's
> trustees. Quite different concept, I'd say.
>
> ...
> But not having student-elected representatives, but instead a teacher-
> headmaster dictatorship with no student-voice at all! Must say I
> don't question rule-breaking in that kind of circumstances, unless it
> harms someone or something. I wonder...

The UK schooling system is very different from this.

There are no student politics in UK secondary schools (which Hogwarts
would classify as), and the students have no voice in how the school is
run. The teachers/headmaster/governors set the school rules, and part of a
prefect's job is to enforce these rules (with appropriate powers - e.g.
giving detentions or lines). Other responsibilities might include
supervising younger students at play-time/free classes, and generally
keeping an eye on things.
There was a lot of self-regulation too - the prefect's dententions were
different from 'proper' detentions, and were usually tailored to make sure
the punishment sitted the crime.
Any serious misdemeanour (like drugs or smoking) would be referred to a
teacher.

If a dignitary should visit the school, it would probably be the prefects
who help it all to go smoothly.

I think the teacher's spot students who are *generally* responsible and
sensible, who won't either abuse the authority or let things slide too
much. That said, at my school being a prefect was often a 'reward' for
academic and/or sporting prowess (although in reality it's probably to do
with choosing people who's education isn't going to suffer with the extra
responsiblities)

The head boy/girl is a kind of super-prefect, who makes sure all the
prefects are happy, and liases with the teachers over trouble-makers or
whatever, and perhaps some policy discussion?


My school also had houses and points, but these were entirely won through
inter-house competitions (both sporting and non-sporting), and never given
outside these competitions, and never taken away at all!

James.




From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Apr 11 14:19:36 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:19:36 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Title (was: Snape the Control Freak) 
Message-ID: <116.f74497d.29e6f578@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37711

Debbie: 
> Oh, and IMO Snape doesn't want the DADA job, or at least he shouldn't want 
> it.  Why would the Potions Master want to take on a reportedly jinxed 
> position to teach a subject that involves foolish wand-waving?   The title, 
> which IIRC has not been used to describe any other professor, or 
> Dumbledore, 
> indicates that he's a recognized expert in his field.  

This point of Snape's title has been brought up before and I just wanted to 
put a British perspective on it, as I think the titles have different 
implications on either side of the Atlantic.

Master (or Mistress) is a normal term for a teacher over here, Form Master, 
Maths Master, etc. It doesn't carry any implications for us of particular 
skill or rank. Professor is a different matter though and IRL, is normally 
used only for the head of a university department. The only departure from 
this rule that I am aware of is at the Music Colleges, where the teachers 
*are* known as professors. I think that this is an archaic usage (cf 
Charlotte Bronte's _The Professor_). In HP, it seems to be being used as a 
wizarding title for a teacher, simply, I would suggest, because it *is* 
archaic, like quills and parchment.

Excellent post, Debbie. I made the same suggestion some time ago about a 
theory file. I expect you know this, but for other confused people, quite a 
few of us posted our Snape theories under Snapetheories, The Cliff Notes 
Version, round about Feb 20th. I hope you have better lick searching the 
archives than I did!

Eloise





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Thu Apr 11 14:36:53 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:36:53 -0000
Subject: Crouch Sr/Jr + WW + DE's mark
In-Reply-To: <3CB3A721.F32CEA0F@qnet.com>
Message-ID: <a94725+jpmi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37712

Silvercat wrote:
> But was it really a war? How big of a group was the DEs?  It seemed
> more like a sinister conspiracy to me.

Wars involve some sort of big confrontation, like two armies facing 
each other, or invasion by numbers. Voldemort's Reign of Terror is 
exactly what's implied in it's name: terrorism, trying to take over a 
country by frightening everyone into submission.

> Although if they formed the
> Aurors just to fight the DEs, it could be considered a very big deal. 
> I can't really think of a good comparision...  Apparently the WW
> tries to take the moral highroad.  After all, death is very, very
> permament.  You can't get information from a corpse.  You can't  
> rehabilitate a corpse.And (for the more upset people) you can't
> punish a corpse.

Appart of the fact that being made a corpse is, in essence, a form of 
punishment (or so is believed in some countries; I don't think so). A 
possible example of the Aurors vs. DeathEaters similarity is North 
Ireland's terrorism problem, and the way the English goverment tried to 
solution it: by going in with the army. The trouble is that the motives 
of one and another are not comparable, but the situation is (more or 
less) the same.

> What if Crouch is confused at that point and mistaking Percy for
> someone else?  A former assistant or something.  One would expect Mr.
> Weasley to say something, but he can't know *everyone* in the MoM. 
> It's foreshadowing for the later scenes.

I don't think that Crouch Sr. is confused at that point. More probably, 
he gets Percy's name wrong the first time and Percy never corrects him 
(he is to awed of his authority), so Crouch really believes he's 
getting it right.

> Petra wrote:
> > It's possible that the short time he spent in Azkaban was enough to 
> > complete (if not begin)  his "going over to the dark side" since 
> > there's certainly nothing holding him back - his mother was no Lily 
> > Potter and his father has disowned him.  It'd be an interesting bit 
> > of self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak.  Imprison the not 
> > entirely innocent and he transforms into what he was accused of 
> > being.  This could also support Voldemort as a father substitute.
> 
> Ew.  I don't think *anyone* could consider Voldemort a father, of any
> type.

But, even it IS "ewww", Crouch Jr. DOES find Voldemort a father 
substitute: in the final chapters of GoF he rambles on how alike they 
both are: despised by their real fathers, etc. Jr. definetely looks up 
to V and strives to be like him, in a very father-son way.

> On the whole Dark Mark thing, I think it was a very unwise idea of
> Voldemort's.  I mean, brand everyone so anyone can see?  When you and
> your group are being hunted down?  Very, very arrogant and
> overconfidant (which about sums him up).

I agree is pretty overconfident and arrogant, but the mark fades away 
when it is not in use, and it serves another purpose: it's difficult 
for someone to try to leave Voldemort's service once he's in, since the 
excuse "I was controlled" is difficult to swallow when you've got the 
mark in your arm (which only true DEs, I think, carry). Malfoy et co. 
were able to get away with it because, when V was nearlly killed, the 
mark faded.

> Silvercat / Phoenix - 
> 
> So what do you need? Besides a miracle.
> Guns. Lots of guns.
> -Tank and Neo, Matrix 

Welcome to the posting world, Silvercat (sorry, I couldn't resist). 
Good sig, by the way, but I prefer:

"Only try to realise the truth"
"What truth?"
"There is no spoon"
- Potential and Neo, Matrix

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 14:48:10 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:48:10 -0000
Subject: Barty & Snape & Dumbledore (with a cameo from Rita Skeeter)
In-Reply-To: <20020411011408.82317.qmail@web20307.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a947na+v8gq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37713

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Amy Z <lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> jc wrote:
> 
> >1)Did Barty Crouch, Jr. know that Snape was permanently off of 
> V's team?  If so, is he the one informing V about who the trio 
> are, or is he staying quiet about it to fit in with the role. 
> Also, if he DIDN'T know, why didn't he try to recruit Snape?

I believe Crouch knew about Snape for several reasons.  First, when 
he has been in Snape's office on the night when Harry uses the 
prefect's bath to figure out the egg and Crouch sees Snape, he looks 
at Snape's left arm and says, "I say there are spots that don't come 
off, Snape.  Spots that never come off, d'you know what I mean?"  
after which Snape "seized his left forearm convulsively with his 
right hand, as though something on it had hurt him."

I believe that Crouch was trying to make Snape think that Moody 
still thought he was a loyal Death Eater.  (Snape's panic may also 
stem from his knowing that the Dark Mark isn't general knowledge, 
which makes Moody seem like an even more formidable Auror than Snape 
previously suspected, with inside information that's very hard to 
come by.)  I think that Crouch was indicating in his sly way that 
the Mark was a sign that Snape was owned by Voldemort, and he would 
be owned by him no matter how much spying Snape did.  A way of 
saying, "You can run but you can't hide."  Although, of course, he 
can't reveal that he's also a Death Eater.

I also believe that it was fairly common knowledge that Dumbledore 
stated at Karkaroff's hearing, where he was naming names, that Snape 
had turned spy and come back to "our" side, as he puts it, before 
the fall of Voldemort.  This was a public forum.  Reporters were 
there (Harry sees a young Rita Skeeter in the Pensieve).  The 
question is, of course, what form did the reporting take, since 
those who weren't there need to rely on this to know what happened.  
I can just picture Rita S. writing something like, "And Albus 
Dumbledore, who is still headmaster of Hogwarts for reasons 
completely escaping this reporter (blackmail most likely figures 
into it somewhere), stood to defend his Potions Master, Severus 
Snape, who may or may not actually be worthy of the trust placed in 
him by this rather dotty old man who should have been put out to 
pasture long ago with the rest of the obsolete dingbats..."

If Rita Skeeter was the one reporting this tribunal to the wizarding 
world, in other words, people would technically know that Snape had 
been a spy, but not necessarily believe that he was sincere in 
changing sides.  Even Molly Weasley took the things Skeeter sait 
about Hermione at face value at first.  However, I believe that 
Voldemort and the other Death Eaters know to read between the lines 
and believe the underlying message that Snape is no longer a loyal 
DE.  They can't afford to trust him anymore, really.
 
> If Barty *did* want to recruit Snape, he would have a problem.  
> How would he approach him without revealing his own loyalties?  
> Mad-Eye Moody can't sidle up to Snape and say "nudge nudge, you 
> still a DE?"  If he's at all hopeful that Snape's heart is still 
> with V, all he can do is try to feel him out.

Precisely, although as stated above, I think he already knows in the 
scene in "The Egg and the Eye" where Snape's loyalties lie.

> Rita wrote:
> 
> >> Remember Sirius's comment about looking at how a
> man treats his subordinates to understand what he's really like?
> 
> >I remain alarmed that JKR put that remark into Sirius's mouth in 
> > a chapter in which pretty much all else Sirius said turned out 
> > to be pretty much wrong. Is she trying to cast doubt on that 
> > truism?

> Nah, I don't think so, because it's a different kind of remark.  
> Many of Sirius's theories end up being wrong, whether in that 
> chapter or elsewhere (e.g. Karkaroff is not trying to kill Harry 
> as Sirius fears in chapter 19), but in that he's just like everyone
> else who's trying to figure this stuff out (e.g. Dumbledore, the 
> Trio).  It doesn't call into question his judgment of character 
> nor his general approach to human nature.

Exactly.  Sirius has some of his facts wrong and so he comes to 
wrong conclusions.  The statement about judging a man by how he 
treats his inferiors is more of a philosophy.  Dumbledore also has 
his facts wrong at various points, such as when he still believes 
that Sirius Black is the one who betrayed the Potters.  He, like the 
rest of the wizarding world, believed Pettigrew to be dead and Black 
to be his murderer.  Just because he, like everyone else, is wrong 
about this, doesn't mean the rest of the truisms he spouts are to be 
thrown in the trash.

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorlinks/Barb 




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 14:36:10 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:36:10 -0000
Subject: Ginny's inconsistent eyes
In-Reply-To: <004a01c1e14d$ce3b2ac0$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a9470q+g013@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37714

Penny wrote:

> Jo Serenadust contends she's found a new Flint:
> 
> <<<I was listening to CoS (Jim Dale version) yesterday and in 
Chapter 
> 3, The Burrow, he read, "On the third landing, a door stood ajar.  
> Harry just caught sight of a pair of bright *GREEN* eyes staring at 
> hime before it closed with a snap."  For some reason this caught my 
> attention and I actually played it again to be sure.  I have both 
> the US and UK versions of CoS, and in both of them Ginny's eyes are 
> brown.>>>>
> 
> Nope, nope.  I get credit for that one!  :--)  

Seems to me we need a different name for this.  It doesn't seem quite 
fair to call it a Flint when it's Dale's error, not JKR's, or perhaps 
just a change JKR made from one printing to another as Penny suggests 
in her Archives message.  It isn't an actual internal inconsistency, 
since Ginny's eyes get no other mention, IIRC.

Amy Z





From trog at wincom.net  Thu Apr 11 15:18:47 2002
From: trog at wincom.net (talondg)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:18:47 -0000
Subject: Barty Jr. on Snape - Sirius on Barty Sr. - Male role models - Ward HP
In-Reply-To: <20020411011408.82317.qmail@web20307.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a949gn+32k2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37715

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Amy Z <lupinesque at y...> wrote:

> jc wrote:
 
>>1)Did Barty Crouch, Jr. know that Snape was permanently off of V's 
>> team?  If so, is he the one informing V about who the
>> trio are, or is he staying quiet about it to fit in with the role. 
>> Also, if he DIDN'T know, why didn't he try to recruit Snape?

> If Barty *did* want to recruit Snape, he would have a
> problem.  

Ahhh... but Barty *doesn't* want to recruit Snape. He doesn't want 
the assistance of *any* other DE's or former DE's. As far as Barty is 
concerned, he is the One true Death Eater Who Remained Loyal, and the 
rest of them are just traitorous scum who cut and ran when things 
looked grim.

Assuming he even knows that Snape had been a DE (and DE's aren't 
supposed to know each other, so that is open to question) to Barty, 
Snape is a disloyal weakling who chose to renouce his Master and go 
work for the bad guys, rather than knuckle down and try and restore 
Voldy. Not the sort of guy you go to for assistance.

Not to mention that Barty wants all the glory for himself.

It's too bad we never got a scene with Barty and Wormtail, each 
trying to out-faun the other. I bet they didn't get along very well.

DG




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Thu Apr 11 15:11:14 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:11:14 -0000
Subject: Snape's Title (was: Snape the Control Freak)
In-Reply-To: <116.f74497d.29e6f578@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9492i+iuan@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37716

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:

> This point of Snape's title has been brought up before and I just 
wanted to 
> put a British perspective on it, as I think the titles have 
different 
> implications on either side of the Atlantic.
> 
> Master (or Mistress) is a normal term for a teacher over here, Form 
Master, 
> Maths Master, etc. It doesn't carry any implications for us of 
particular 
> skill or rank. Professor is a different matter though and IRL, is 
normally 
> used only for the head of a university department. The only 
departure from 
> this rule that I am aware of is at the Music Colleges, where the 
teachers 
> *are* known as professors. I think that this is an archaic usage 
(cf 
> Charlotte Bronte's _The Professor_). In HP, it seems to be being 
used as a 
> wizarding title for a teacher, simply, I would suggest, because it 
*is* 
> archaic, like quills and parchment.
> 
I also thought that JKR uses the term "professor" rather than Mr, Mrs 
Miss etc. This way she doesn't have to give any indication about the 
female teachers marital status. Given that she has said that this 
will be important later, but she's not ready to tell us yet.(Sorry I 
can't remember what interview that was from). 

Ali

(Who has only read the books 12 times in the past 3 years, so is 
obviously lagging way behind the likes of UncMark!)





From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Thu Apr 11 15:44:42 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:44:42 -0000
Subject: Snape's Title, married Hermione
In-Reply-To: <116.f74497d.29e6f578@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a94b1a+o4ss@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37717

Eloise wrote:

> Master (or Mistress) is a normal term for a teacher over here, Form 
Master, 
> Maths Master, etc. It doesn't carry any implications for us of 
particular 
> skill or rank. Professor is a different matter though and IRL, is 
normally 
> used only for the head of a university department. In HP, it seems 
to be being used as a 
> wizarding title for a teacher, simply, I would suggest, because it 
*is* 
> archaic, like quills and parchment.
> 
Canon question: are the only times the word master is used the 
references to Snape as potions master and when he calls Dumbledore 
Headmaster?

If so I would suggest this is evidence of Snape's formality in 
dealing with colleagues and students.  The others are teachers, which 
to me smacks of primary and state secondary school terminology (I'm 
British, I have children at both), while at my then Direct Grant 
Grammar, now private, school, teachers were masters (no mistresses, 
it was an all boys school)

So it may not be the WW, but Snape, who is archaic in this matter.

-------------------------

One reason given for rejecting Finwitch's suggestion that Hermione 
and Ron may marry at Hogwarts is that JKR has ruled out teen 
pregnancy as an issue for the series.  However, just to play devil's 
advocate (after all, what is more fun than eliciting 'ick' 
and 'ewwww' from fellow listies?), could that be misdirection?  The 
context (type 'pregnan' into Aberforth's Goat's search engine) 
implies unintended unmarried pregnancy.  IIRC in English law you can 
marry with very few obstacles from 16, which they will all be at the 
beginning of Book 6 - oops, a few weeks into Book 6 if you want to 
take the perverse, er, I mean, er, transatlantic, view of Hermione's 
age.  So the machinery's all there for a baby at the beginning of 
Book 7, little Romulus Lupin, who will doubtless finish off Voldemort.

David




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Thu Apr 11 16:18:05 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:18:05 -0000
Subject: Secondary Sortings
In-Reply-To: <20020410220615.77547.qmail@web13401.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a94cvt+j0b6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37718

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Rohit Puskoor <columbiatexan at y...> wrote:
> I was just thinking, it's interesting that each member
> of the Trio has an identifying characteristic that
> could easily have led to their being sorted into
> another house.  Ron's intense loyalty to the people he
> loves is a very Hufflepuff quality; Hermione's
> cleverness--Ravenclaw; and the Sorting Hat itself said
> that Harry's desire to prove himself (and, as
> Dumbledore commented, his willingness to break the
> rules, among other things) would make him a good fit
> for Slytherin.  I wish we knew what the Sorting Hat
> had said to Ron and Hermione, and I'm also wondering
> whether Rowling did this on purpose.   A group of 3
> Gryffindors who are also representative of the other 3
> houses of Hogwarts--obviously, had they been sorted
> into the other houses, they wouldn't have been able to
> interact with each other.  I want to find out more
> about the Sorting Hat!

I think the reason we only saw the Hat's thinking with Harry is 
because JKR uses Harry as point-of-view.  The reader sees and 
hears what Harry sees and hears.  So far as we can tell, the Hat 
may have talked with each of the students -- or at least those who 
took a long time to sort.

Probably the Hat has secondary choices for almost everybody.
That would keep everybody in a house from being alike.  From 
what we see of Cedric Diggory, he might well have landed in
Gryfindor.

Does the Hat remind anybody else of Meyers-Briggs?
I figure:

Gryfindor: NT
Slytherin: SJ
Hufflepuff: NF
Ravenclaw: SP

Harry: INTJ
Hermione: INTP
Ron: ENTP

Tex





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 16:05:02 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:05:02 -0000
Subject: Hermione's Choice  (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <005101c1e150$0079cc60$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a94c7e+rl2f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37719

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
> As best I recall, Ron only oogles Fleur specifically (and, like 
> Harry, the veela in general at the Quidditch World Cup, although 
> in the case of the QWC, Hermione pulls *Harry* down to his chair & 
> seems exasperated with *him* & not *Ron*).  

No, she's pretty exasperated with both of them.  Seems she's 
starting to see what it'll be like to be best friends with two 
teenage boys once the hormones have kicked in.  In Chapter 8, "The 
Quidditch World Cup" we get the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron, meanwhile, was absentmindedly shredding the shamrocks on his 
hat.  Mr. Weasley, smiling slightly [and seeming unaffected by the 
Veela, perhaps not being as hormonal as Ron and Harry], leaned over 
to Ron and tugged the hat out of his hands.

"You'll be wanting that," he said, "once Ireland have had their say."

"Huh?" said Ron, staring openmouthed at the veela, who had now lined 
up along one side of the field.

Hermione made a loud tutting noise.  She reached up and pulled Harry 
back into his seat.  "*Honestly!*" she said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Hermione's tutting and "Honestly!" is meant for both 
boys.  There's no indication that these things were only aimed at 
Harry, only that he was the one who needed to be pulled back at that 
point.

> As for Fleur though, Hermione despises Fleur from the very second 
> she sees her, and this is *way* before Ron has *any* reaction to 
> Fleur.  If you re-read the scene where the Beauxbatons students 
> arrive at Hogwarts, you'll see what I mean.  Hermione takes an 
> instantaneous dislike to her that is completely & totally 
> unrelated to Ron's subsequent reaction to Fleur in the dining 
> hall.  So, I think Hermione just dislikes Fleur in a general sense 
> in any case and her friend Ron's reaction to Fleur just puts the 
> icing on the cake so to speak.  

I don't know why you think this.  When the students first arrive, it 
says simply, "They were shivering, which was unsurprising, given 
that their robes seemed to be made of fine silk, and none of them 
were wearing cloaks.  A few had wrapped scarves and shawls around 
their heads."  There's absolutely nothing about Hermione spotting 
Fleur and taking an instant dislike to her, nor Ron noticing her 
either.  (Nor Harry, for that matter, who probably just thinks that 
they should have planned better and brought cloaks for a visit to 
Scotland.)

In fact, the thing I found funny upon looking back at this, is that 
Ron notices Krum before anyone else, and is dreadfully excited about 
this.  Hermione's response is, "For heaven's sake, Ron, he's only a 
Quidditch player," to which Ron responds, "*Only a Quidditch 
player*?" as though she's spouting heresy.  She also immediately 
gets annoyed with some girls squabbling over a lipstick they might 
get Krum to use to sign an autograph.  [Funny, I never noticed that 
mention of makeup before...gah.  Another issue.]  In some ways she 
seems more irked about this than about Fleur.  Any Ron/Viktor 
shippers out there? Perhaps HE really wanted to go to the ball with 
VK? <eg>

Perhaps when you say Hermione took an instant dislike to Fleur, you 
are thinking about this passage:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the Beauxbatons girls still clutching a muffler around her 
head gave what was unmistakably a derisive laugh. [in response to 
Dumbledore]

"No one's making you stay!" Hermione whispered, bristling at her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a reaction to the girl's lack of respect to Dumbledore, 
nothing more.  And it isn't "from the very second she sees her."

The next mention of Fleur is on the next page:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
At that moment, a voice said, "Excuse me, are you wanting ze 
bouillabaisse?"

It was the girl from Beauxbatons who had laughed during Dumbledore's 
speech.  She had finally removed her muffler.  A long sheet of 
silver-blonde hair fell almost to her waist.  She had large, deep 
blue eyes, and very white, even teeth. [I believe the mention of the 
teeth is important because of Hermione's deciding to let Pomfrey fix 
her teeth later.  Also, there is no mention of Hermione bristling 
when the girl asks for the food.  If we're to think she'd taken a 
clear permanent dislike to her, this might be included here.]

Ron went purple.  He stared up at her, opened his mouth to reply, 
but nothing came out except a faint gurgling noise.

"Yeah, have it," said Harry, pushing the dish toward the girl. [He 
is evidently unaffected by her.]

"You 'ave finished wiz it?"

"Yeah," Ron said breathlessly.  "Yeah, it was excellent." [When 
Hermione offers him bouillabaise earlier, he says, 'Bless you,' as 
though she'd sneezed, and then doesn't try any.]

The girl picked up the dish and carried it carefully off to the 
Ravenclaw table.  Ron was still goggling at the girl as though he 
had never seen one before.  Harry started to laugh.  The sound 
seemed to jog Ron back to his senses.

"She's a *veela*!" he said hoarsely to Harry.

"Of course she isn't!" said Hermione tartly.  "I don't see anyone 
else gaping at her like an idiot!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, Hermione's reaction here seems to be clearly an annoyance with 
Ron because of his reaction to Fleur (mostly, I think, because his 
reaction is so over-the-top).  She's not in fact reacting badly to 
Fleur, but Ron's behavior.  (And it certainly isn't in response to 
Harry's response to the girl, which seems pretty neutral.)  This is 
followed soon after by Ron's proclamation that "They don't make them 
like that at Hogwarts!" (which I would take as a personal insult if 
I were Hermione) and Harry saying, "They make them okay at 
Hogwarts," while looking at Cho.  (NOT looking at Hermione--or 
Ginny, for that matter.)  

Hermione's reaction: "When you've both put your eyes back in," said 
Hermione briskly, "you'll be able to see who's just arrived."  She's 
clearly miffed with BOTH hormonally crazy boys here, as at the QWC.  
First Ron basically insults every girl at the school, which includes 
her, then Harry defends the honor of Hogwarts, but not by holding up 
Hermione as an example.  You'd think she could expect her two best 
friends to show a little more loyalty, right?  Hermione probably 
thought so, and is not too pleased to learn how easily they can be 
distracted.  This whole experience has got to be a blow to her ego, 
IMO.

> As for Cho, we're not sure really whether Ron or Hermione would 
> know that Harry was crushing on Cho.  We know Harry reacts to 
> seeing Cho at the QWC campsite & Ron seems to notice this .... but 
> he might just think Harry thought she was pretty (didn't know it 
> was a bit more than that in other words).  Hermione isn't even 
> present when Harry tells Ron & Ginny that *Cho* turned him down.  
> Ginny says they were both turned down by girls & so Hermione knows 
> that much ... but who knows if she's guessed it was Cho or not?  
> In any case, since Cho was clearly linked up with Cedric post-Ball 
> (and possibly pre-Ball), Hermione might not have guessed there was 
> any reason for jealousy.  :--)  She also might not be conscious of 
> her own feelings for either boy for that matter.  
 
No, but as noted above, she has to tell Harry to put his eyes back 
in his head when he's staring at the Ravenclaw table, and I don't 
think she thought he was staring at Fleur.  Hermione's pretty sharp; 
she's probably seen where his eyes have been going.

When Ginny informs her that both Harry and Ron have been turned down 
by girls they'd asked to the ball, Hermione doesn't know for certain 
that the girls are Cho and Fleur, but her reaction to Ron is the 
fiery one:

"All the good-looking ones taken, Ron?" said Hermione loftily 
[perhaps including herself here, since she is in fact 
taken], "Eloise Midgen starting to look quite pretty now, is she?  
Well, I'm sure you'll find someone *somewhere* who'll have you."

OUCH!  Somehow, though, she doesn't feel the need to needle Harry, 
and she WAS just nagging him previously about working on the egg, so 
it's not like she's walking on eggshells around him or anything.

> In that vein, I'd be very interested to hear more about 
> Barb's "Krum as doppelganger for Harry theory".  

I had this in a post some months ago.  I can go search the archives.

--Barb
 





From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Thu Apr 11 16:30:22 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:30:22 -0000
Subject: Weatherby
In-Reply-To: <a94725+jpmi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a94dmu+ke05@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37720

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> 
> I don't think that Crouch Sr. is confused at that point. More 
probably, 
> he gets Percy's name wrong the first time and Percy never corrects 
him 
> (he is to awed of his authority), so Crouch really believes he's 
> getting it right.
> 
There is an alternative explanation for the fact that Crouch calls 
Percy 'Weatherby'.

We know that at the beginning of COS, Malfoy is wandering round 
Diagon Alley, planting dangerous magical books on Weasleys.  We find 
that at that time Percy is engrossed in a deeply boring book 
entitled 'Prefects who Gained Power', subtitle something like A study 
of the later careers of Hogwarts alumni.

It could be that this book, with its obviously Slytherin theme, was 
constructed by a Dark wizard named Weatherby, who gradually takes 
over the reader in the same way Riddle took over Ginny.  On hearing a 
code word which indicates the victim is in the MOM (the 
phrase 'cauldron bottoms' springs to mind), Weatherby takes over 
completely, and only relinquishes control when the victim leaves the 
ministry.

So Crouch is just calling Percy by the name he answers to at the MOM.

No, I don't believe it either.

David




From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 17:06:43 2002
From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] My Love of JKR
In-Reply-To: <a93g25+kufo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020411170643.80848.qmail@web13501.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37721


--- uncmark (is that Uncle Mark?)wrote:

> 2) No characters going to the dark side. The entire
> western world was raised on Star Wars and Lord of 
> the Rings. Please no corrupting of  the main 
> characters (or their families)

Pooh!  This is part of what makes things interesting. 
I don't want to see Ron or Herm betray the side of
good, but I fully expect Percy to work on the side of
the Ministry in the 5th book.  That means strained
relations with his family and Hogwarts staff.  I don't
think he's evil though, and by the end of book 5,
he'll be welcomed back into the bosom of his family.
 
> 3) It's TOO EARLY to match up 13 & 14 year olds. As
> this is a grownups club, How many of you met your 
> future spouses at that age?

Since you asked.  *raises hand* ME!  Met him at 15,
started dating at 16, married at 19, first baby at 21,
fourth baby at 29.  I'll be 34 this month.  Still
married.  Happily. (For the anti-H/Krum crowd, he's
four years older than I.)


> 4) PLEASE STOP THE [HARRY] DEATH PREDICTIONS!!!  

I totally agree!  I do not want to invest 7 years (or
however long) of my life in a character who does not
earn a happy ending!
 
Lizgiz - who knows this is probably too OT and
argumentative, but will post it anyway. :P


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 17:20:21 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:20:21 -0000
Subject: Hermione's Choice  (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <a94c7e+rl2f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a94gkl+2aaf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37722

Barb wrote:
 
> "All the good-looking ones taken, Ron?" said Hermione loftily 
> [perhaps including herself here, since she is in fact 
> taken], "Eloise Midgen starting to look quite pretty now, is she?  
> Well, I'm sure you'll find someone *somewhere* who'll have you."
> 
> OUCH!  Somehow, though, she doesn't feel the need to needle Harry, 
> and she WAS just nagging him previously about working on the egg, 
so 
> it's not like she's walking on eggshells around him or anything.

The reason she needles Ron instead of Harry here is that it was Ron, 
not Harry, who admitted that the plan was to ask the best-looking 
girl who would have him, even if she's completely horrible.  Why pick 
on Harry at this point?  All he's done is get turned down.  He didn't 
insult Eloise Midgen or treat Hermione like a useful commodity ("you 
can go with one of us"--as Hermione would say, "Honestly!").

Amy




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Thu Apr 11 16:52:14 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:52:14 -0400
Subject: Ron, Fleur and Hermione
Message-ID: <300BC221.079EB7F7.6E93A4F5@netscape.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37723

I'd like to follow up Barb's excellent analysis of the interactions between Hermione, Ron and Fleur with some commentary on the very final Hogwarts scene in GOF.

Fleur mentions to Harry that she may return to practice her English.  Ron says, in a strangled sort of voice, that it is very good already, and Hermione glowers (this is the famous semicolon, I believe).

I feel that this scene shows a significant development on Ron's part which is relevant to discussions of the ease with which he can be induced or deluded into betraying his friends.

IMO, the first thing to understand is that Ron does *not*, in the normal sense of the word, have a crush on Fleur, and never has done.  Right from the beginning, as Barb pointed out, he loses control around her, and doesn't like it.  He (partly correctly for once) deduces she is a veela.  At no time does he, when acting normally, express any desire for her as a romantic partner.  He loses control at the first feast, and then again, when he asks her to the ball.  After that, his approach is to try to avoid her, mainly no doubt from embarrassment but presumably also for fear he will commit some new solecism.

So the fact that he makes the effort to speak to her, and to say something nice, shows that as well as recognising he has weaknesses, he is resolved to overcome them.  (Asking for Krum's autograph is a similar incident.)  I believe that this shows that he is learning the lessons of the whole ball sequence, as well as of his dispute with Harry.

What of Hermione's glower?  I suggest it shows that she, too, still has a little learning to do.  If she is merely glowering at Fleur, then she appreciates her less than we as readers are being led to through the second task.  If, OTOH, she is glowering at Ron's behaviour, then I think she is missing a major trick, as it should indicate to her that she will be dealing with a new improved Ron in future, if she gives him a chance.

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 that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 11 18:06:43 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:06:43 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron, Fleur and Hermione
Message-ID: <F216hWTjvuDocXpGRWv0000495a@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37724

>From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net
>Fleur mentions to Harry that she may return to practice her English.  Ron 
>says, in a strangled sort of voice, that it is very good already, and 
>Hermione glowers (this is the famous semicolon, I believe).

David, you've made me wonder something. How are we supposed to take Ron's 
word? Is he simply complimenting Fleur, and thus earning Hermione's glare, 
as she seems to fancy him for herself, or is he, subtly-but-not-subtly 
suggesting "your english is just fine, go back to France where I don't have 
to fall apart because you're around..."

Hmmmmmmm

J

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Apr 11 18:18:26 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:18:26 -0000
Subject: Ron, Fleur and Hermione
In-Reply-To: <F216hWTjvuDocXpGRWv0000495a@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a94k1i+u8k9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37725

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" <that1guy_hp at h...> wrote:

> David, you've made me wonder something. How are we supposed to take
Ron's 
> word? Is he simply complimenting Fleur, and thus earning Hermione's
glare, 
> as she seems to fancy him for herself, or is he,
subtly-but-not-subtly 
> suggesting "your english is just fine, go back to France where I
don't have 
> to fall apart because you're around..."

Frankly, to me it sounds like just another variation on "the
boulliabaise is brilliant" -- he is just mindlessly blurting out
something he thinks Fleur will be pleased to hear.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 16:59:36 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:59:36 -0000
Subject: Weatherby
In-Reply-To: <a94dmu+ke05@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a94fdo+dl7g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37726

David wrote:

> There is an alternative explanation for the fact that Crouch calls 
> Percy 'Weatherby'.

<impressively paranoid theory snipped>

> No, I don't believe it either.

Come on, I was right there with you!  And it explains why Percy is so 
flustered when Crouch calls him that.  His cover is blown.

OK, here's a L.O.O.N.ier but more boring explanation, of sorts:  
Percy is not yet Crouch's personal assistant (he announces his 
promotion to that position at the Yule Ball).  He's just a very new 
member of Crouch's department--so Crouch should know his name 
(especially with Arthur WEASLEY, with whom he's worked probably for 
decades, standing right there, duh), but it isn't quite so bad as not 
knowing your own assistant's name.

Amy Z





From dicentra at xmission.com  Thu Apr 11 19:01:34 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:01:34 -0000
Subject: snape's kitten
In-Reply-To: <a93o3j+5ocq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a94mie+42ed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37727

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jaymzhuk" <jwh at c...> wrote:
> 
> With all this talk of Snape having a soft side, I couldn't resist 
> building my own hut on the hills around Theory Bay:
> 
> THE SHRIEKING SHACK (Teacher's Hard Exterior Shrouds Heart-Rendered 
> Interior - Even Kindness If Nobody Gazing: Snape Has a Cute Kitten).
> 
> I don't think it would last long against canon fire, but couldn't 
> stop myself.
> 

Yes!  Yes!  A kitty!  A little bitty kitty!  And he holds it and pets
it and calls it G...  um...  better not go that route.  We've already
got one of those Georges and he's enough trouble as it is.

And not a black kitty, either; that's too cliche. It's a little gray
striped kitty with blue eyes and long fur. He gives it a reverse
Kitty-Gro potion so it never grows out of being a kitten. It likes to
play with Snape's toes while he's in the bathroom doing his toilette
(such as it is). After a long day of sniping and putting two and two
together (as only he can), he goes back to his lair and sits by the
fire with the kitty tucked under his chin, purring and purring, until
Snape falls asleep.  

Around 3am the kitty wakes up and wants to play. She begins to paw
Snape's formidable nose. Getting no reaction, she begins to pretend
there are mice near Snape's collarbone, and her little claws rake his
skin as she digs into the space between his robe and his neck. Around
this time Snape wakes up and tosses the kitty on the floor, but in
true kitty style, she doesn't take the hint and in a flash she's on
his lap again, clinging to his robes with her claws, who manage to
catch a few pieces of flesh in the process. 

Snape gets up and tries to go to bed, prying the kitty off his robes
and tossing her on the floor again, but she follows him, directly
under his feet, so she's either being stepped or she's tripping him as
he walks down the hall.

Snape crawls into bed, and the kitty is right there, standing on his
chest and turning her backside toward his nose. He tosses the kitty
off the bed and utters some choice adjectives. Again, not taking the
hint, the kitty jumps on the bed and sees his toe moving under the
blankets. She pounces on it, biting the blankets and managing to get a
couple of sharp teeth through the blanket and into his flesh. Snape
kickes at her mightily and she lands on the floor. But finding this
tossing around stuff good fun, she's back on the bed.  

Snape's had it. He leaps out of bed, grabs the cat under the belly,
and tosses her out of the room, shuts the door, and throws himself
back on the bed. Outside his bedroom door, the kitty begins to cry as
if she had just lost her best friend. Snape pulls the pillows over his
head to drown out the mewling, but he knows she's there, crying her
little heart out. When he wakes up the next morning, he's hardly
refreshed, and the little kitty scratches sting like crazy. He's
grumpy and out of sorts and the sniping commences once again.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is your canon for
T.H.E.S.H.R.I.E.K.I.N.G.S.H.A.C.K.  Snape's nasty demeanor is the
fault of a cute little kitty cat that he can't bear to throw in the
lake but that drives him crazy every single night.

--Dicentra, whose black cat that gets her up at 5am




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Apr 11 19:53:19 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:53:19 -0000
Subject: Weatherby
In-Reply-To: <a94fdo+dl7g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a94pjf+hq3t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37728

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" <lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> David wrote:
> 
> > There is an alternative explanation for the fact that Crouch calls 
> > Percy 'Weatherby'.
> 
> <impressively paranoid theory snipped>
> 
> > No, I don't believe it either.
> 
> Come on, I was right there with you!  And it explains why Percy is 
so 
> flustered when Crouch calls him that.  His cover is blown.
> 
> OK, here's a L.O.O.N.ier but more boring explanation, of sorts:  
> Percy is not yet Crouch's personal assistant (he announces his 
> promotion to that position at the Yule Ball).  He's just a very new 
> member of Crouch's department--so Crouch should know his name 
> (especially with Arthur WEASLEY, with whom he's worked probably for 
> decades, standing right there, duh), but it isn't quite so bad as 
not 
> knowing your own assistant's name.
> 
> Amy Z

Is David a Flying Hedgehog person? 

I've always thought it strange that Crouch can be talking so easily 
with Arthur, as if they've known each other for years, and then mess 
up his son's last name. If it was "Percy" that he stumbled on, calling 
him "Peter" like Draco did in CoS, I could understand. But "Weasley" 
should be a well-known name to him. 

Unless, of course, Crouch has been calling the Weasleys Weatherbys 
ever since Hogwarts, and just can't kick the habit. I know people like 
that, who get entrenched in their version of a name despite their 
will. It's not that Crouch doesn't know Percy is a Weasley, it's just 
that all Weasleys are Weatherbys, what?

Eileen




From m.bockermann at t-online.de  Thu Apr 11 20:28:48 2002
From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:28:48 +0200
Subject: More on Ginny's name and the Sorting hat
References: <1018366032.4576.13587.m9@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c1e199$5eba5440$592f56d9@i7p8l9>

No: HPFGUIDX 37729

The more I think of it, the more I suspect there might be a reason that we
don't know Ginny's real name, yet.

Meaning part of the reason for whole
Ford-Anglia-missing-the-sorting-hat-ceremony was to prevent Ron and Harry to
be present at the Sorting hat ceremony, so that we don't hear Ginny's real
name. If Ron and Harry had been present... they would have heard her real
name. This way JKR can include her name and any story that's behind it or
might derive from it at a later point of time. So, if her name is a give
away to a missing Weasley child or another plot point, we don't get any
spoilers in HP2.

Interestingly, at the end of GoF, Harry has heard the hat only two out of
four times. And in GoF, he learns something about the hat he didn't know
before (that it doesn't sing the same song again and again every year. ) I
can't shake the feeling, that in HP 5, 6 or 7 we'll learn something else
important about the sorting hat. (JKR hinted that we *would* learn more
about it) Something that would cause our dear Harry to be startled. Like:
"People usually *do* get sorted into the house of *one* of their parents",
"The sorting hat never changes its opinion"... ?

Any other controversial suggestions, anyone?

Barbara Jebenstreit,
who'd give a *lot* to know the Sorting hat's song of HP 5, 6 and 7. As well
as the rest, of course. :-)


Polgara wrote:
Agreed. The Weasleys do seem to tend to give their children ordinary English
styled names. However, since the whole survival of the alphabet naming
theory depends on Percy and Ron being known by their middle names, why can't
the same argument be made for Ginny?
Of course, now we need a reason as to why the Weasleys would call Ginny by
her middle name. Hmm... I subscribe to the theory that the Weasley
granparents were killed along with David/Daisy while Molly was away giving
birth and Percy was hiding after breaking a rule. Therefore, I propose that
Ginny was named in honor of her grandmother. However, it was too painful for
Arthur and Molly to remember their dear lost parents and child every time
they say the name, so they eventually decided to call her by her middle name
(Virginia?), which was soon shorted to Ginny by her older brothers.
Now, what could Ginny's real first name be then?




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 21:00:08 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:00:08 -0000
Subject: No more alphabet, please (was: Ginny's name and the Sorting hat)
In-Reply-To: <000b01c1e199$5eba5440$592f56d9@i7p8l9>
Message-ID: <a94tgo+4oca@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37730

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., m.bockermann at t... wrote:
> However, since the whole survival of the alphabet naming
> theory depends on Percy and Ron being known by their middle names, 
> why can't the same argument be made for Ginny?

Umm, because they didn't name the kids based on the alphabet, that's 
why.  Good grief--why has this theory persisted?  The first child's 
name is William.  Then Charles.  Then Percival.  Then Fred could be 
either Frederick, Alfred, Wilfred or any number of other names 
containing Fred.  George is obviously just George.  Then Ronald.  
Then Virginia.  WCP?GRV doesn't look like the alphabet to me.  JKR 
is pretty clever about names, IMO.  I believe the meanings are the 
important thing and to try to discern some hidden message by 
proposing convoluted theories based on initials is really reaching.  
Particularly when--I'll say it again--the first child's name begins 
with "W."  If JKR were going with the alphabet, Charlie should have 
been named "Xylophone," Percy should have been "Yeti" and the twins 
should have been "Zig" and "Zag" and Molly and Arthur would have 
stopped there.;)

--Barb




From fluxed at earthlink.net  Thu Apr 11 20:03:12 2002
From: fluxed at earthlink.net (vulgarweed)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 20:03:12 -0000
Subject: My Love of JKR/Snape's kitten
In-Reply-To: <a93fvr+id04@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a94q60+2rle@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37731

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:

Uncmark ranted most eloquently:

> A few rantings:
> PLEASE JKR
> 
> 1) Hurry with Book 5! We're all going through Harry withdrawl!
Agreed!
> 
> 2) No characters going to the dark side. The entire western world 
was 
> raised on Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Please no corrupting of 
> the main characters (or their families)

Weeeellll....I think it's _because_ the entire Western world was 
raised on Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, and the older myths and 
stories those tales are descended from, that we _will_ see some dark-
siding (and in fact already have). Really, the moral struggle of the 
choices one makes is the whole theme of the books. If there's no 
clear and present danger of corruption where's the struggle and the 
choices? I think we wouldn't have such a stellar array of examples of 
different ways corruption is handled (think of Snape, Pettigrew, 
Crouch Sr., Malfoy junior and senior, Tom Riddle, Sirius Black 
[unjustly imprisoned for 12 years, thereby revealing corruption 
aplenty in the judicial system, somehow resisting it himself but at 
what cost to his sanity?], etc.). I think that theme of corruption 
and its horrid possibilities is the REASON why SW and LOTR have the 
enduring appeal that they do. Those of us who want to be good guys 
know it's not as easy as just putting on the nice clean good-guy 
suit. The storytellers expect us to IDENTIFY with the temptation and 
confusion of Frodo, or of Skywalker junior or senior, because all of 
us have a shadow, and maybe all of us have a price. I'd be very 
disappointed in JKR if she _didn't_ ask us to come to grips with some 
of this fear and doubt through the eyes of a main character.
> 
> 3) It's TOO EARLY to match up 13 & 14 year olds. As this is a 
> grownups club, How many of you met your future spouses at that age?

Future spouses? It's kind of rare, but it does happen. And of course 
it's much rarer in our current society, which is a very large global 
world in which people move around a lot, leave their hometowns 
regularly, and tend to postpone marriage until after university study 
or working for a while, than it used to be. Back in the 
medieval/Renaissance society the wizard world in some ways evokes, 13-
 and 14-year-olds got married all the time. The wizard world seems 
like a smaller and more tight-knit society, so early matches might be 
more common there. 13 and 14....ew, no, but 17 or 18? Yeah, I could 
certainly see that, not all that uncommon in our world, after all. AS 
IT IS NOW, though 13- and 14-year-olds certainly do flirt, suffer 
infatuations, pass around romance novels dog-eared to "the good 
parts," ask each other out, pine away, touch themselves in the dark, 
and if they're lucky, fool around. In modern culture, most people 
date around quite a bit before finding their life partners, and this 
is the age when it starts. To ignore that completely would, IMO, make 
the characters unrealistic. Glad JKR's not doing that. (we don't need 
to hear about anybody's nocturnal emissions, though, she ain't Judy 
Blume.)
> 
> 4) PLEASE STOP THE DEATH PREDICTIONS!!! Harry does not have to die 
at 
> the climax! He can live happily ever after! How would you have 
> handled knowing at 14 that you would save the world and be famous, 
> but by the way... you're going to die at age 18, so don't bother 
> getting too connected to anyone... or falling in love... or 
anything 
> that makes life worth living...

Hm. I could go either way on this one. It's not _necessary_, true. I 
hope he doesn't die. But whether he does or not, he doesn't know it 
at 14! (he doesn't care what Trelawney says). Maybe he suspects--
there is a pretty big target on his forehead, and he's very aware of 
that. He IS a child of war, and he knows that he is. Most children of 
war generally don't worry much about their retirement plans--even if 
they are safe, sometimes it's hard for them to believe. Harry knows 
that when his own parents died, they weren't much past 18, after all. 
And they'd already experienced a lot of things "that make life worth 
living," else he wouldn't be there.
> 
> Done with my ranting... Sorry
> 
> Please JKR! Release BOOK 5 SOON!!!!!
> 
Hear hear!

Now we're probably not going to read about Snape's kitten in book 5, 
alas. Any theories on where this kitten came from? Just wandered in? 
Innocent child of a torrid, illicit alliance perhaps involving Mrs. 
Norris? (Or McGonagall even, but I think Mrs. Norris is more likely).

luv
AV





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Apr 11 21:17:52 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:17:52 -0000
Subject: No more alphabet, please (was: Ginny's name and the Sorting hat)
In-Reply-To: <a94tgo+4oca@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a94ui0+n5rl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37732

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:

> Umm, because they didn't name the kids based on the alphabet, that's 
> why.  Good grief--why has this theory persisted?  The first child's 
> name is William.  Then Charles.  Then Percival.  Then Fred could be 
> either Frederick, Alfred, Wilfred or any number of other names 
> containing Fred.  George is obviously just George.  Then Ronald.  
> Then Virginia.  WCP?GRV doesn't look like the alphabet to me.  JKR 
> is pretty clever about names, IMO.  I believe the meanings are the 
> important thing and to try to discern some hidden message by 
> proposing convoluted theories based on initials is really reaching. 
 
> Particularly when--I'll say it again--the first child's name begins 
> with "W."  If JKR were going with the alphabet, Charlie should have 
> been named "Xylophone," Percy should have been "Yeti" and the twins 
> should have been "Zig" and "Zag" and Molly and Arthur would have 
> stopped there.;)
> 
> --Barb

There's canon evidence, though, that Bill is short for Billius. That 
was the name of the Weasley uncle who saw the Grim. 

Still, I agree with you. This is getting too strained.

BCPFGR(G OR V) 

However, if it really is Virginia, it goes

BCPFGRV, which is all alphabetical, except for Percy. 

Or to take the male names.

ABCPFGR

And Percy's out of order.

So, I've never subscribed to a theory that places too much importance 
on the order, but I think Percy's out-of-orderness could be symbolic.

But if you strenuously want to keep a pattern with several old fanfic 
favourites.

Arthur
Bill 
Charlie
Dead kid
Evil!Percy
Fred
George
HarryHating!Ron 
Invisible!Ginny

Eileen




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 21:57:13 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:57:13 -0000
Subject: No more alphabet, please (was: Ginny's name and the Sorting hat)
In-Reply-To: <a94ui0+n5rl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a950rp+vk0j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37733

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> There's canon evidence, though, that Bill is short for Billius. 
> That was the name of the Weasley uncle who saw the Grim. 

That just means that there's an uncle by that name.  It doesn't mean 
Bill's named after him.  If he were, you'd think some would have 
said, "My Uncle Billius--Bill was named after him, you know--saw a 
Grim..."  The most likely name for Bill is still William.  The 
Weasleys are using pretty common names.  The most outlandish name 
among the seven kids is Percy, which isn't that odd, really.  

In fact, the most unusual names among the students are Draco and 
Hermione (is that the reason some people want them together?).  The 
adults have wacky names like Gilderoy, Severus, Sirius, Remus, 
Albus, Aberforth, Mafalda, Arabella, Mundungus, and don't get me 
started on the schoolbook authors.  The kids are named things like 
Harry, Neville (actually a pretty common name), Roger, Lisa, Ernie, 
Justin, Hannah, Natalie, Colin, etc.  Seamus is a common Irish 
name.  Lavender isn't all that common, but it's another flower name, 
like Pansy, Petunia, Lily, etc., and it may also be a nod to Roald 
Dahl (in Matilda, her best friend's name is Lavender).  Okay, Blaise 
is weird too, but JKR may yet give a reason for that one.

> Still, I agree with you. This is getting too strained.

[snip]

> But if you strenuously want to keep a pattern with several old 
> fanfic favourites.
> 
> Arthur
> Bill 
> Charlie
> Dead kid
> Evil!Percy
> Fred
> George
> HarryHating!Ron 
> Invisible!Ginny

LOL!  At least that's funny, instead of tortured. ;)

--Barb





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Apr 11 21:58:26 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:58:26 -0000
Subject: Weatherby
In-Reply-To: <a94pjf+hq3t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a950u2+dt5b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37734

Eileen wrote:

> Is David a Flying Hedgehog person? 

 <snip>

> I've always thought it strange that Crouch can be talking so easily 
> with Arthur, as if they've known each other for years, and then 
>mess 
> up his son's last name. 

::edges into room while keeping back firmly against the wall at all 
times, wearing Flying Hedgehog badge on the inside of clothing so no 
one notices::

Did someone call for a paranoid LOON?  

I can't make sense of Crouch Sr.'s tendency to call Percy "Weatherby" 
either.  Sure, maybe Crouch is used to calling Mr. Weasley "Arthur", 
so he mangles the last name.  

But the real question for me is why Crouch Sr. is calling Percy by 
his perceived last name?  Crouch Sr. calls Bagman "Ludo," he calls 
Mr. Weasley "Arthur," he calls Dumbledore "Albus."  I couldn't find 
an instance where Crouch Sr. addresses anyone directly by their last 
name.  

So, what does this mean?  Well, Flying Hedgehog-types know, don't 
we?  Percy is operating under an alias!  Yes, that's it!  Percy is 
passing himself off as Weatherby Weasley.  Percy has something to 
hide, that's what is going on.  Percy. Is. Not. Evil.  But I'm not 
sure he's to be trusted.

Cindy (wondering what is lurking in the shadows)




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Apr 11 22:08:25 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:08:25 -0000
Subject: No more alphabet, please (was: Ginny's name and the Sorting hat)
In-Reply-To: <a950rp+vk0j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a951gp+41au@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37735

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> > There's canon evidence, though, that Bill is short for Billius. 
> > That was the name of the Weasley uncle who saw the Grim. 
> 
> That just means that there's an uncle by that name.  It doesn't mean 
> Bill's named after him.  If he were, you'd think some would have 
> said, "My Uncle Billius--Bill was named after him, you know--saw a 
> Grim..."  The most likely name for Bill is still William.  The 
> Weasleys are using pretty common names.  The most outlandish name 
> among the seven kids is Percy, which isn't that odd, really.  

Hmmmm.... I don't see that following. But I agree that, on the whole, 
the Weasleys don't go in for strange  names. 

> 
> In fact, the most unusual names among the students are Draco and 
> Hermione (is that the reason some people want them together?).  The 
> adults have wacky names like Gilderoy, Severus, Sirius, Remus, 
> Albus, Aberforth, Mafalda, Arabella, Mundungus, and don't get me 
> started on the schoolbook authors.  The kids are named things like 
> Harry, Neville (actually a pretty common name), Roger, Lisa, Ernie, 
> Justin, Hannah, Natalie, Colin, etc.  Seamus is a common Irish 
> name.  Lavender isn't all that common, but it's another flower name, 
> like Pansy, Petunia, Lily, etc., and it may also be a nod to Roald 
> Dahl (in Matilda, her best friend's name is Lavender).  Okay, Blaise 
> is weird too, but JKR may yet give a reason for that one.

"Blaise" is a strange name? It's a quite ordinary boy's name in my 
experience, though I know it can be a girl's name too. An 
old-fashioned boy's name, but not weird. I know several Blaises. 

On the whole, I've wondered at that too. What has happened to the WW 
that they so quickly switched over to a complete slate of almost 
ordinary names? Draco and Hermione are pretty much by theirselves. 
There are names that have classical backgrounds like Marcus and 
Terence, but they're still modern names. 

> > Still, I agree with you. This is getting too strained.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > But if you strenuously want to keep a pattern with several old 
> > fanfic favourites.
> > 
> > Arthur
> > Bill 
> > Charlie
> > Dead kid
> > Evil!Percy
> > Fred
> > George
> > HarryHating!Ron 
> > Invisible!Ginny
> 
> LOL!  At least that's funny, instead of tortured. ;)

Yes. The Weasley naming scheme finally uncovered. I can't believe it 
took this long to figure it out.

Eileen




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 22:19:57 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:19:57 -0000
Subject: Weatherby
In-Reply-To: <a950u2+dt5b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9526d+87t4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37736

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> I can't make sense of Crouch Sr.'s tendency to call 
> Percy "Weatherby" either.  Sure, maybe Crouch is used to calling 
> Mr. Weasley "Arthur", so he mangles the last name.  
> 
> But the real question for me is why Crouch Sr. is calling Percy by 
> his perceived last name?  Crouch Sr. calls Bagman "Ludo," he calls 
> Mr. Weasley "Arthur," he calls Dumbledore "Albus."  I couldn't 
> find an instance where Crouch Sr. addresses anyone directly by 
> their last name.  
> 
> So, what does this mean?  Well, Flying Hedgehog-types know, don't 
> we?  Percy is operating under an alias!  Yes, that's it!  Percy is 
> passing himself off as Weatherby Weasley.  Percy has something to 
> hide, that's what is going on.  Percy. Is. Not. Evil.  But I'm not 
> sure he's to be trusted.
 
You really want to write fanfic, Cindy, admit it. ;)  Actually I 
think there's a couple of things going on with Crouch calling 
Percy "Weatherby."  Equals are called by their first names, while 
subordinates are called by their last names.  (See "Gosford Park"--
and not just because of the name thing. <g>)  Butlers and maids are 
called Perkins or Jeeves or Anderson or whatever.  So that's the 
first thing.  As for the second thing, I agree that he probably 
knows perfect well what Arthur's and Percy's name is, and he's doing 
the "Weatherby" thing on purpose.  He knows Percy's ambitious and 
also a bit of a toady.  I wouldn't be surprised if he's turning and 
smirking every time he calls Percy "Weatherby."  Remember, he's not 
a nice man.  And think of the behavior his son displays when he's 
masquerading as Moody.  This is all perfectly in line with the 
Crouch family.  Gah.  I have to say, I don't like any of them.

--Barb
(pitying poor Mrs. Crouch)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 11 22:25:58 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:25:58 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No more alphabet, please (was: Ginny's name and the
 Sorting hat)
Message-ID: <F310L1c00goZolmRBaY0001fa72@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37737

Barb wrote:
>Okay, Blaise
>is weird too, but JKR may yet give a reason for that one.

I'm not even sure if Blaise is a boy or a girl. :\ I'm leaning towards girl, 
but I think I read once that Blaise is traditionally a boy's name.

lucky_kari wrote:
> > Arthur
> > Bill
> > Charlie
> > Dead kid
> > Evil!Percy
> > Fred
> > George
> > HarryHating!Ron
> > Invisible!Ginny

LOL thanks, that was worth a giggle!

Liz

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 11 22:26:44 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:26:44 -0000
Subject: WW name trends (was No more alphabet, please)
In-Reply-To: <a951gp+41au@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a952j4+f7lc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37738

Eileen asked:

> What has happened to the WW 
> that they so quickly switched over to a complete slate of almost 
> ordinary names? Draco and Hermione are pretty much by theirselves. 
> There are names that have classical backgrounds like Marcus and 
> Terence, but they're still modern names. 

It seems like Muggle generations.  Two generations ago we had loads 
of Helens, Ethels, Berthas, Franks, and Harrys in this country (the 
U.S.); those are rarities among children born today (with one 
exception, perhaps? <g>).  In fifty years Jessica and Jason will 
sound old-fashioned.  Some names are perennial (Anne, John, David, 
Margaret) but most ebb and flow.

On the other hand, in the WW we see several generations and the 
change seems quite recent:  we have odd names all the way from Albus, 
born c. 1842, to Sirius, born c. 1960, but then this latest 
generation is much more Mugglish.  We do see a bit of a crossover, as 
if in Sirius's generation people were starting to shift, so that we 
get Remus and Sirius and Severus but also James and Peter (Lily 
doesn't count, since of course her parents have her a Muggle name).  
Is there a sociopolitical reason behind the trend toward Harrys, 
Ronalds and Seamuses?  An unconscious desire to blend in, perhaps 
even a pro-Muggle statement in protest against the pureblood movement 
afoot in their birth year of 1980? 

Another possibility is that while to our ignorant eyes, Albus and 
Severus seem like similar names, to wizard perceptions they carry 
distinctly different generational markers, and are as distinct from 
one another as Severus is from Harry.

UndoubtedlyOveranalyzing!AmyZ




From editor at texas.net  Thu Apr 11 22:43:44 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:43:44 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Title, married Hermione
References: <a94b1a+o4ss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007701c1e1aa$5b155860$7b7663d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37739

Dave said:

> If so I would suggest this is evidence of Snape's formality in
> dealing with colleagues and students.  The others are teachers, which
> to me smacks of primary and state secondary school terminology (I'm
> British, I have children at both), while at my then Direct Grant
> Grammar, now private, school, teachers were masters (no mistresses,
> it was an all boys school)
>
> So it may not be the WW, but Snape, who is archaic in this matter.

It also may simply be that he can't shake the habit. Recall that Snape was
at one time the student of these people; if he was contemporary with James
et al, he was a student of McGonagall's, I believe Dumbledore was the
headmaster then as well (if not, he too was a teacher), and Hagrid was
probably the Keeper of Keys and Grounds (he was a contemporary of
Voldemort's, and thus would have been well adult when Snape was a student).
I know from personal experience that even when you have no ooky past to
haunt you, shaking the ingrained habit of calling professors by "Dr.
Whoever" instead of "Firstname" is way hard, even when they rag you about it
and tell you to stop being so formal. "Dr. Whoever" is just who they *are.*

Snape doesn't seem so formal with those who are his age or younger, but the
sample of those where we've seen the interaction is both tiny and limited to
people he hates, so that may not prove anything.

If that made sense.

--Amanda






From nesbitaa at purdue.edu  Thu Apr 11 23:41:29 2002
From: nesbitaa at purdue.edu (oboakk)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:41:29 -0000
Subject: WW name trends (was No more alphabet, please)
In-Reply-To: <a952j4+f7lc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a956v9+ae6h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37740

AmyZ:
<<On the other hand, in the WW we see several generations and the 
change seems quite recent:  we have odd names all the way from Albus, 
born c. 1842, to Sirius, born c. 1960, but then this latest 
generation is much more Mugglish.  We do see a bit of a crossover, as 
if in Sirius's generation people were starting to shift, so that we 
get Remus and Sirius and Severus but also James and Peter (Lily 
doesn't count, since of course her parents have her a Muggle name).  
Is there a sociopolitical reason behind the trend toward Harrys, 
Ronalds and Seamuses?  An unconscious desire to blend in, perhaps 
even a pro-Muggle statement in protest against the pureblood movement 
afoot in their birth year of 1980?>>


There is some evidence that if there was a shifting of name trends in 
the WW, it may have begun even before the Marauder generation.  Take 
Arthur and Molly Weasley, who have perfectly Mugglish names, but are 
older (but we can only speculate how much so) than James and Sirius.  
Sibyll also seems rather Mugglish to me, although her generation is 
almost harder to pin down than the Weasleys'.

I always assumed that the Weasley children's Muggle names were more 
of a nod to Arthur's love of all things Muggle than a reflection of 
the general attitude toward names in the WW.

Abby





From silvercat at qnet.com  Thu Apr 11 22:51:13 2002
From: silvercat at qnet.com (Silvercat)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:51:13 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why do Muggles get a capital letter?
References: <a93p9e+ulap@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CB61361.EAD0A375@qnet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37741


> 
> > "... Weaver ..." wrote:
> > > Why are there 'Muggles' and 'wizards'?  Why not 'muggles' and
> wizards, or
> > >  Muggles and 'Wizards'?  Surely it makes more sense to be
> consistent?
> > >
> > > Given that the wizarding community is (I think...) much smaller
> than the
> > >  Muggle community, wouldn't it make more sense to capitalise the
> word 'Wizard'
> > > instead, as wizards are rarer?

finwitch wrote:
> I figured it to be a nationality - after all, in many ways the wizard-
> world is like a separate country: government, currency, boarders,
> culture...

But we capitalize American, British, etc, so that doesn't really cover
why.  You have a good point, though.  They pratically need translators! 
It's even not so much a different nation (at least in this modern world,
further back in time, like when Japan first opened up to the West), as a
different world.  They have completely different mindsets and ways of
thinking.

> > grey wolf c wrote:
> > > Anyway, getting to the point, I think Muggles deserves a capital
> letter
> > > in the same way "French" or "German" or "Japanese:" it's a way of
> > > indicating that they're from a different
> culture/country/whatever.
> > > Wizard is not (normally) capitalized because it refers to
> oneself, like
> > > "human" or "person". I'm not 100% sure, but isn't "Warlock"
> > > capitalized? That would indicate that Warlock is the formal name
> of
> > > wizards is, as a counter part of "Muggle".
> 
> Silvercat:
> 
> > There are languages that don't capitalize other languages, but the
> point
> > holds.  Doesn't Warlock only refer to males? Just another word for
> > wizard?  Hmmm, why do they use witch and wizard, instead of witch
> and
> > warlock, etc? (Besides to keep the Christian fundamentalists off
> JKR's
> > back)

finwitch wrote:
> Seems to me that Warlock is some sort of title or achievement. Like
> Dumbledore's... Chief Warlock, Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand
> Sorceror... Did I get it right? I wonder if some of these titles
> proves more meaningful in Order of Phoenix than we may think.

I forgot about that.  I was referring to the traditional sense.  Hmmm. 
Maybe something like an Ph.D.?  But what would Grand Sorceror be? Maybe
it refers to different types.  Warlock could be expertise in
transfiguration, curses, potions (the darker, more witchy/medicine
men/shaman stuff), while Sorceror is charms... (the lighter stuff - more
wand waving).  I know in Anthropology witchcraft and sorcery have
different meanings. Lessee... Ah! 'sorcery involves the use of rites and
spells [...] we define witchcraft as the use of psychic power alone.' 
Okay, I've got the connotation's backward.  Maybe Warlocks are more
nature-stuff [beasts, potions] and Sorcerors are more, ummm, the other
stuff.

finwitch wrote:
> Something in the Chocolate Frog Card did (his association with
> Nicholas Flamel, and Philosopher's Stone)-- and speaking of Cards,
> does Ron have Cards on Lily, James and Harry Potter in his collection
> of 500?

I wonder what a person has to do to be included.  My first thought was
that they weren't old enough, but who knows? I could see there being a
Harry card (imagine if Harry got one!).  Are Dark wizards included?  It
just says famous...

> Silvercat:
> > I don't think so... Most Star Trek species are just humans with
> funky
> > foreheads or noses.  They usually even have red blood.  Betazeds
> just
> > have black irises (and telepathy). And they all can interbreed with
> > humans.

finwitch wrote:
> And Vulcans have the oddity of Green Blood, but the point holds.

That's why I said 'usually.'  Vulcans have green blood, Klingons are
supposed to have pinkish blood, I think Andorians have blue.  Anyway...

> > So wizards were originally mutants?  Maybe it's Muggles that were
> > originally different.  They seem to imply that magic was much more
> > common earlier, or maybe it's just me.  What's that one syndrome
> where
> > you have three genes in one spot instead of two - Down syndrome?
> 
> Not genes, chromosomes. Down syndrome,  yes, there's 3 21-chromosomes
> instead of 2.

Oops.  I should've paid more attention in class.  Well, it was just an
example.

finwitch wrote:
> But back to the topic, I don't think magical ability is genetical any
> more than musical talent.

But non-musical people can learn to play music.  Muggles can't learn
magic. (or can they?! Maybe nobody's ever tried...)  A genetic basis
would give that magic quill that writes down the new students something
to base it on.  And just like other genes, it can be there but not
functioning right (to make Squibs).  Since it's in families, it seems to
be much more than just a talent.


-- 
Silvercat / Phoenix - 

A mountain was in the way. A mountain of furiously quivering blue flesh
which turned the sky black, their knees to water, and cast a shadow
across the distant landscape. Somewhere near the summit a small pair of
ridiculous (and quite useless) red wings fluttered foolishly. 'You're
all going to die a most grisly death!'
- description of the Astral Moat Monster, Way Back...When?, Second
Thundercats Annual
_________________________
http://blackflame.topcities.com - Silvercat's Menagerie, a vast array of
mostly disconnected stuff






From silvercat at qnet.com  Thu Apr 11 23:05:41 2002
From: silvercat at qnet.com (Silvercat)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:05:41 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Crouch Sr/Jr + WW + DE's mark
References: <a94725+jpmi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CB616C5.8C27401F@qnet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37742

grey_wolf_c wrote:
> 
> Silvercat wrote:
> > But was it really a war? How big of a group was the DEs?  It seemed
> > more like a sinister conspiracy to me.

grey_wolf_c wrote:
> Wars involve some sort of big confrontation, like two armies facing
> each other, or invasion by numbers. Voldemort's Reign of Terror is
> exactly what's implied in it's name: terrorism, trying to take over a
> country by frightening everyone into submission.

I thought of that, I just couldn't think of a good example (outside of
Star Trek and I don't need to scare any more non-Trekkies).  I agree
with you, it's not a war.

> > Although if they formed the
> > Aurors just to fight the DEs, it could be considered a very big deal.
> > I can't really think of a good comparision...  Apparently the WW
> > tries to take the moral highroad.  After all, death is very, very
> > permament.  You can't get information from a corpse.  You can't
> > rehabilitate a corpse.And (for the more upset people) you can't
> > punish a corpse.

grey_wolf_c wrote:
> Appart of the fact that being made a corpse is, in essence, a form of
> punishment (or so is believed in some countries; I don't think so).

I'm thinking of the people who think 'death is too good for them.' 
Death is quick and can only be done once (at least it seems to be that
way in HP, some other stuff, OTOH...).  Compare being killed to being
driven insane (like the Longbottoms).  Would killing the DE be fair
punishment?  Some people might not think so. (which is why governments
are supposed to be in control of that, to prevent vengenence, but I
digress...)

grey_wolf_c wrote:
> A possible example of the Aurors vs. DeathEaters similarity is North
> Ireland's terrorism problem, and the way the English goverment tried to
> solution it: by going in with the army. The trouble is that the motives
> of one and another are not comparable, but the situation is (more or
> less) the same.

I'm afraid to say, I'm not very familiar with that situation (living in
the US and all...).  How big of a group are the Aurors?  If they have
the kind of power that Moody was describing, they would have to be very
carefully selected to prevent abuse.

> > What if Crouch is confused at that point and mistaking Percy for
> > someone else?  A former assistant or something.  One would expect Mr.
> > Weasley to say something, but he can't know *everyone* in the MoM.
> > It's foreshadowing for the later scenes.
> 
> I don't think that Crouch Sr. is confused at that point. More probably,
> he gets Percy's name wrong the first time and Percy never corrects him
> (he is to awed of his authority), so Crouch really believes he's
> getting it right.

Well I did only read it once... It's a pet theory! There's not supposed
to be proof! 
=^.^=  I still say it's possible.

grey_wolf_c wrote:
> But, even it IS "ewww", Crouch Jr. DOES find Voldemort a father
> substitute: in the final chapters of GoF he rambles on how alike they
> both are: despised by their real fathers, etc. Jr. definetely looks up
> to V and strives to be like him, in a very father-son way.

EWWWWWWWW!!!

> > So what do you need? Besides a miracle.
> > Guns. Lots of guns.
> > -Tank and Neo, Matrix
> 
> Welcome to the posting world, Silvercat (sorry, I couldn't resist).
> Good sig, by the way, but I prefer:
> 
> "Only try to realise the truth"
> "What truth?"
> "There is no spoon"
> - Potential and Neo, Matrix

I've got that on the side of my computer.

-- 
Silvercat / Phoenix - 

A mountain was in the way. A mountain of furiously quivering blue flesh
which turned the sky black, their knees to water, and cast a shadow
across the distant landscape. Somewhere near the summit a small pair of
ridiculous (and quite useless) red wings fluttered foolishly. 'You're
all going to die a most grisly death!'
- description of the Astral Moat Monster, Way Back...When?, Second
Thundercats Annual
_________________________
http://blackflame.topcities.com - Silvercat's Menagerie, a vast array of
mostly disconnected stuff





From alina at distantplace.net  Thu Apr 11 23:36:06 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:36:06 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] WW name trends (was No more alphabet, please)
References: <a952j4+f7lc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <010801c1e1b1$a768aa80$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37743

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: lupinesque 

  On the other hand, in the WW we see several generations and the 
  change seems quite recent:  we have odd names all the way from Albus, 
  born c. 1842, to Sirius, born c. 1960, but then this latest 
  generation is much more Mugglish.  We do see a bit of a crossover, as 
  if in Sirius's generation people were starting to shift, so that we 
  get Remus and Sirius and Severus but also James and Peter (Lily 
  doesn't count, since of course her parents have her a Muggle name).  
  Is there a sociopolitical reason behind the trend toward Harrys, 
  Ronalds and Seamuses? 


I think the reason is hidden in Ron's words "If we didn't marry Muggles we'd've died out" (not exact words, I think, but close enough). Perhaps the last two-three generations are the ones where more and more wizarding folk began looking into muggle society for potential spouses. Maybe the actual notion of "dying out" without marrying Muggles is a recent one? And the realization that "we need new blood" only hit around the 60s or so, people began marrying Muggles, begetting half and half children with more and more muggle names. 

Alina


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From skelkins at attbi.com  Fri Apr 12 01:52:26 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:52:26 -0000
Subject: WW name trends (was No more alphabet, please)
In-Reply-To: <a952j4+f7lc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a95ekq+jbdi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37744

Eileen asked:

> What has happened to the WW that they so quickly switched over 
> to a complete slate of almost ordinary names? 

Perhaps it happened because the WW had two wars, and in both
cases the anti-muggle faction lost?

Okay, so we don't actually know anything about Grindelwald
and the Wizarding World's WWII analogue.  Given that Dumbledore 
is known to have opposed Grindelwald, however, and given that 
he's also a notorious muggle-lover, it seems quite possible 
to me that Grindelwald's followers, like Voldemort's, associated 
themselves with a strongly anti-muggle platform.  If so, then 
it would not seem at all unlikely for the naming traditions 
of the Wizarding World to have undergone two sea changes, one 
in the post-war period of the 1950s, and another one during
the days of Voldemort's rise.

Amy wrote:

> Is there a sociopolitical reason behind the trend toward Harrys, 
> Ronalds and Seamuses? An unconscious desire to blend in, perhaps 
> even a pro-Muggle statement in protest against the pureblood 
> movement afoot in their birth year of 1980? 

I've always assumed that this does indeed reflect sociopolitical
changes within the wizarding world.

Wizards born before the 1940s tend to have classical names, either
Latinate or mythological.  We have Albus, Rubeus, Minerva, and
Sibyll.  Even "Poppy" Pomphrey might well be a Poppeia.

The post-war, pre-Voldemort generation seems to be divided along 
lines of heritage, or perhaps even lines of political affiliation.  
Proud Old Families seem to prefer to stick with their old-fashioned 
naming traditions.  So the Crouches are Bartemii, and Fudge is a 
Cornelius.  The Malfoys are Lucius and Narcissa.  Bagman, whose 
manner of speaking of good old *Augustus* Rookwood in his Penseive 
appearance would seem to indicate that his family was very much 
tied into the old boy network of the Wizarding World, is named 
Ludo.

The Weasleys, the Longbottoms and the Potters, on the other
hand, seem to have struck out into Muggle territory when it 
came time to name their children.  We have Molly and Arthur,
and good old Uncle Algie, and Frank and James.

Given that these families are all three strongly associated 
with either a firm pro-muggle stance or a strong emnity to 
Voldemort and his followers, I find myself wondering whether 
their political affiliations might not have been to some extent 
a matter of family tradition.  

I can also see this as a kind of analogue to the "popularization" 
of British muggle culture in the post-war period.  It is possible 
that the old-fashioned naming traditions began to fall out of vogue
in this era, as the WW became less traditional overall, a trend 
which might well have contributed to the class resentment which 
led so many members of the older families to join with voldemort.

I do know that Sirius, Severus, and Remus' first names have 
always strongly suggested to my mind that their families were 
probably both pure-blooded and rather socially conservative,
if not necessarily anti-muggle.  Peter, on the other hand,
interests me.  Possibly his family really were political 
liberals.  But I rather get the impression that they may
have been simply a trifle...common.

By the time of Voldemort's rise, however, classical or Latinate
names would seem to have become the province of only the very 
oldest and snootiest families.  My suspicion here is that this 
was a matter of prudence.  Voldemort and his Death Eaters were 
viewed as *criminals.*  They were more a terrorist organization 
than a political movement, and their members wished to keep their 
affiliation secret.  Only the haughtiest of aristocratic families, 
such as the Malfoys, could therefore get away with naming a 
child something like "Draco" without it raising instant suspicion.  
Most of Harry's contemporaries, even the DEs' children, have 
either muggle names or names of the straddling-the-political-fence, 
still-not-quite-muggle-but-nonetheless-socially-acceptable floral 
variety.

I find it interesting also to note that the classical names 
that we find in Harry's generation -- Terence, Marcus -- almost
always seem to belong to members of House Slytherin.


-- Elkins




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Apr 12 02:08:35 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:08:35 -0000
Subject: LONG -- Renovating TOADKEEPER (WAS FLIRTIAC ticket, renovating ToadKeeper)
In-Reply-To: <007701c1d32e$7dab01c0$500edccb@price>
Message-ID: <a95fj3+nesb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37745

Tabouli wrote (about the discredited and discarded ToadKeeper theory):
 
> The *scrapyard*?  Could this be the same woman who lovingly 
>nurtured this poor toad through his tadpoledom and then hurled him 
>overboard in a fit of embarrassment at the sight of a canon?

Perhaps I was a bit hasty there, eh?  

Perhaps this is one of those situations where a person doesn't 
realize how much she wants something until her foe tries to wrestle 
it away from her?

Perhaps I'm not about to surrender custody of ToadKeeper to Tabouli 
without a fight?

All of the above, I think.  ;-)

*******************

Now that Tabouli mentions it, now that she has displayed the 
ToadKeeper theory under just the right conditions, I can see that 
ToadKeeper is just chock *full* of potential.  As Tabouli 
acknowledges, something is definitely going on with the Toad.  The 
Toad is showing up way too much to have no purpose at all.  And 
Neville is not a sufficiently important character to warrant a 
useless pet.  No, both Neville and the Toad are going to be 
*critical* at some point in the next three books.  But *how*?

Despite my numerous, near-hysterical on-list challenges to provoke 
additional Trevor backstory theories, no one had even attempted an 
alternative Toad theory.  They all go quiet, they avert their eyes, 
they edge away silently, almost fearfully.  

Until now.

Before I get to Tabouli's proposed renovations, a ToadKeeper 
refresher course is in order.  The original ToadKeeper theory was 
conceived as an explanation of why Snape seems to have it in for 
Neville's useless Toad, Trevor.  The original ToadKeeper Theory 
(which I'll call ToadKeeper I), as well as Tabouli's latest upstart 
ToadKeeper Theory (ToadKeeper II) both are premised on the idea that 
Trevor is no ordinary toad.  That there is far more to Trevor than 
meets the eye.

But that's where the similarity ends.  ToadKeeper I posits that when 
Evil Mrs. Lestrange and her gang shoved their way into the 
Longbottom's home, Frank worked a quick bit of magic on himself and 
his wife.  He deposited their souls into Trevor.  Neville has to take 
care of Trevor, because if anything happens to Trevor, Neville really 
*will* have lost his parents forever. 

Neville, for lack of a better term, is theToadKeeper, because Toddler 
Neville was the only other person present when the spell was 
performed.  As we know, Neville has never mentioned to the trio that 
his parents are at St. Mungos.  It has always bothered me that 
Neville has these secret visits to his parents who do not even 
recognize him.  What's the point in that, after all?  Well, the point 
is that the doctors at St. Mungos are trying to work out a way to put 
the souls of Frank and his wife back into their bodies.  Neville goes 
to St. Mungos to bring Trevor whenever the doctors think they have a 
new experimental spell for him to try that might work.  So far, no 
luck.

OK, the canon is difficult to find.  I mean, what do you want from 
me?  This is a theory premised entirely on characters with no 
dialogue at all:  Frank, his wife, the St. Mungo's doctors and a 
Toad.  

Now, originally, I said there was only a smidgen of canon.  But I 
turned out to be wrong about that.  I got a little help there.  An 
alert LOON launched a wicked canon assault on ToadKeeper I, an 
assault that rocked me back on my heels for  . . .  well . . .  for 
several days, actually.  An assault that darn near destroyed my faith 
in ToadKeeper I.

That particular LOON (Judy Serenity) calmly drew my attention to the 
little detail that Neville seems to think Trevor was purchased just 
before Neville left for Hogwarts.  She wrote:

>Anyway, Neville's uncle bought Neville the toad after Neville got 
>into Hogwarts; it says so in PS/SS. 

OK.  Granted, at first glance, this does not look good for 
ToadKeeper.  After all, if Trevor were really purchased just weeks 
before Neville arrived at Hogwarts, it isn't likely that Trevor 
contains the souls of Neville's mother and father.  No, ToadKeeper I 
*requires* that Trevor the Toad have been around 13 years ago when 
the Longbottoms were tortured.  So how does ToadKeeper I sidestep 
Judy's clever citation to PS/SS?  

Very, very carefully, that's how.  In PS/SS, Neville says his family 
thought he "was all-Muggle for ages."  Great Uncle Algie seemed 
especially concerned with this, repeatedly trying to force some magic 
out of Neville.  This includes pushing Neville off of a pier, nearly 
drowning him.  Then, when Neville was eight, Uncle Algie dangled 
Neville out of a window, "accidentally" letting go and bouncing 
Neville down the street.  "Gran was crying, she was so happy," 
Neville reports.  

And then Neville delivers the line that was thought to destroy 
ToadKeeper I:  Neville says that when he received his Hogwarts 
letter, "Great Uncle Algie was so pleased he bought me my toad."  

So.  Is that bit of canon enough to sink the ToadKeeper I once and 
for all?  

Not a chance.  Actually, it is rather helpful.  Why on earth is Uncle 
Algie so darned concerned with forcing some magic out of Neville, 
anyway?  Indeed, the whole story seemed over the top to me when I 
first read it.  Would a grown man deliberately and repeatedly 
endanger a small orphaned boy just to spook some magic out of him?  

What's *wrong* with Uncle Algie, anyway?  Nobody is *that* bent.  It 
just doesn't ring true, does it?

The reason Neville's version of the story doesn't ring true is 
because it is not the whole story.  The *real* reason Uncle Algie 
desperately tries to force magic out of Neville (and the reason Gran  
cries when it finally works) is because Neville is the Longbottoms' 
ToadKeeper.  If Neville is a Squib, all is lost; the Longbottoms will 
never get their souls out of Trevor.  So Uncle Algie is hanging onto 
Trevor, getting increasingly worried and desperate that Neville might 
not be magical and so may never be able to restore the Longbottoms' 
souls.  Eventually, due to Uncle Algie's desperate efforts, Neville 
is revealed to be a wizard, but a weak one.  Uncle Algie continues to 
fret.  

Then Neville gets his Hogwarts letter, establishing once and for all 
that Neville is not only a wizard, but a powerful enough wizard to go 
to Hogwarts.  Uncle Algie, overcome with emotion, finally gives 
Trevor to Neville, explaining to Neville exactly how important Trevor 
is and why.  

Weeks later, Neville, not wanting to reveal any of this to his 
Hogwarts friends, says that Uncle Algie recently "bought" him the 
Toad.  Why would Neville do that?  It may simply be a bit of a white 
lie.  Whether Neville gets his parents back depends entirely on 
whether Neville is strong enough to work whatever spell is needed to 
restore them.  Neville might well fail at this.  He doesn't want his 
friends to know what he is facing.  He doesn't need the pressure, the 
questions, the pity.  Neville is brave enough to be in Gryffindor, so 
Neville will tackle this little problem on his own, thank-you-very-
much.  So he leaves the impression that Bent Uncle Algie tormented 
Neville and recently bought Trevor as a gift. 

Where's the canon, you ask?  Somehow, I *knew* that question was 
coming.  

Well, I've cited plenty of canon already.  But, lo and behold, I seem 
to have three extra canons lying around that I don't really even 
need.  And they're mighty Big:

First, JKR has already introduced the idea that something important 
can be concealed in another living thing.  In the Fidelius Charm, the 
location of the Potters is concealed "inside a single living soul."  

Second, JKR has established the idea that souls can be removed from 
wizards. 

Third, JKR has established that people can exist without their souls. 

Boy, those are the very concepts JKR would need to establish for 
ToadKeeper I to work.  Fancy that!

Eh, maybe it's just a coincidence.  :-)

******************

Tabouli taunted (about her proposed ToadKeeper renovation):

>Then we'll sail it casually past Cindy's pier and her eyes will 
>boggle to think she discarded an unrecognised masterpiece which may 
>one day be worth millions.

Ah, well.  As much as I hate to attack clever, canon-based theories, 
I must question the authenticity of ToadKeeper II.  You see, it has 
problems.  Big problems.  Problems big enough to qualify as actual 
*holes.*  I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it simply must 
be said.  

As Tabouli mentions, toads are the least desirable of the permissible 
Hogwarts pets.  Even Ron, who has a rat with a missing toe, scorns 
toads.  Yet we are to believe that Uncle Algie is so overwhelmed with 
Neville's admission to Hogwarts, so relieved, so overjoyed, that 
Ungle Algie goes out and buys the *worst* pet that exists.  Yes, I 
said Uncle Algie is bent.  But even Uncle Algie ought to know the 
difference between a good pet and a lame pet.

And we are to further believe that Neville, who was raised in the 
wizarding world, is so taken with Uncle Algie's dubious gift that 
Neville chases this worthless Toad all around Hogwarts?  I think I 
could use some more convincing there.

Tabouli:

> T.O.A.D.K.E.E.P.E.R. (The Odious Amphibian: Death-eater Knavishly 
>Executing Espionage, Pursuing Evil Revenge) anyone?

Uh oh.  ToadKeeper II definitely has a better acronym.  It's an 
awesome acronym, in fact.  Sadly, ToadKeeper I has no acronym at 
all.  

I think I need the services of an upstart acronym generation service, 
a new service with no vested interest in the ToadKeeper custody 
battle, a competing outfit that flies the flag of the . . . Grey Wolf.

Cindy (noting that the Trevor Backstory Challenge is still open)




From pennylin at swbell.net  Fri Apr 12 02:43:18 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:43:18 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's Choice  (SHIP)
References: <a94c7e+rl2f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00d901c1e1cb$cda5f260$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 37746

Hi --

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
> As best I recall, Ron only oogles Fleur specifically (and, like 
> Harry, the veela in general at the Quidditch World Cup, although 
> in the case of the QWC, Hermione pulls *Harry* down to his chair & 
> seems exasperated with *him* & not *Ron*).  

Barb argued:

<<<<No, she's pretty exasperated with both of them.  Seems she's 
starting to see what it'll be like to be best friends with two 
teenage boys once the hormones have kicked in.  In Chapter 8, "The 
Quidditch World Cup" we get the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron, meanwhile, was absentmindedly shredding the shamrocks on his 
hat.  Mr. Weasley, smiling slightly [and seeming unaffected by the 
Veela, perhaps not being as hormonal as Ron and Harry], leaned over 
to Ron and tugged the hat out of his hands.

"You'll be wanting that," he said, "once Ireland have had their say."

"Huh?" said Ron, staring openmouthed at the veela, who had now lined 
up along one side of the field.

Hermione made a loud tutting noise.  She reached up and pulled Harry 
back into his seat.  "*Honestly!*" she said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Hermione's tutting and "Honestly!" is meant for both 
boys.  There's no indication that these things were only aimed at 
Harry, only that he was the one who needed to be pulled back at that 
point.>>>>>>>>>

Ehhhhhhhh.... *maybe.*  Amanda did a very detailed analysis of the most likely seating arrangement at the QWC :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/2365

It would seem that Hermione is on the end closest in proximity to Harry but Ron is on the other side of Harry, if Amanda is to be believed.  It's *possible* that Hermione overheard Arthur's commentary from 3 seats away despite the crowd noise of the event.  But, I'll stick with the equally-reasonable (IMO) construction that Hermione was reacting to Harry & hadn't particularly noticed Ron at that juncture.  I don't think it's clear-cut either way though.   

I said:

> As for Fleur though, Hermione despises Fleur from the very second 
> she sees her, and this is *way* before Ron has *any* reaction to 
> Fleur.  If you re-read the scene where the Beauxbatons students 
> arrive at Hogwarts, you'll see what I mean.  Hermione takes an 
> instantaneous dislike to her that is completely & totally 
> unrelated to Ron's subsequent reaction to Fleur in the dining 
> hall.  So, I think Hermione just dislikes Fleur in a general sense 
> in any case and her friend Ron's reaction to Fleur just puts the 
> icing on the cake so to speak.  

Barb argued:

<<<<I don't know why you think this.  When the students first arrive, it 
says simply, "They were shivering, which was unsurprising, given 
that their robes seemed to be made of fine silk, and none of them 
were wearing cloaks.  A few had wrapped scarves and shawls around 
their heads."  There's absolutely nothing about Hermione spotting 
Fleur and taking an instant dislike to her, nor Ron noticing her 
either.>>>>>>>>

Okay, you're really stretching to discredit my argument here I think.  <g>  What I *meant* was that when Hermione first notices Fleur, she has a reaction of dislike (more on that later).  I was *not* arguing that the instant the Beauxbatons students disembarked, Hermione spotted Fleur & disliked her.  We can only gauge her reaction from the moment that she sees her, and in that instance, you've noted the following:

Perhaps when you say Hermione took an instant dislike to Fleur, you 
are thinking about this passage:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the Beauxbatons girls still clutching a muffler around her 
head gave what was unmistakably a derisive laugh. [in response to 
Dumbledore]

"No one's making you stay!" Hermione whispered, bristling at her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a reaction to the girl's lack of respect to Dumbledore, 
nothing more.  And it isn't "from the very second she sees her.">>>>>>

Er...why is *not* from the second she sees her?  There's no textual indication that Hermione had focused on Fleur prior to that moment.  It might or might not be the first second that Hermione had really focused on Fleur as an individual.  And despite the *reason* for her dislike, it's still an initial reaction of dislike *that is not related to Ron or Ron's reaction to Fleur.* 

Barb then said:

<<<<When Ginny informs her that both Harry and Ron have been turned down 
by girls they'd asked to the ball, Hermione doesn't know for certain 
that the girls are Cho and Fleur, but her reaction to Ron is the 
fiery one:

"All the good-looking ones taken, Ron?" said Hermione loftily 
[perhaps including herself here, since she is in fact 
taken], "Eloise Midgen starting to look quite pretty now, is she?  
Well, I'm sure you'll find someone *somewhere* who'll have you."

OUCH!  Somehow, though, she doesn't feel the need to needle Harry, 
and she WAS just nagging him previously about working on the egg, so 
it's not like she's walking on eggshells around him or anything.>>>>>>

Amy already made my counter-argument here (thanks, Amy!).  Clearly you have to look at the context of the remarks, and it's very clear that *Ron* is the one who made the remark that pissed Hermione off a bit earlier (re: finding the best-looking girl who'd have him), not Harry.  So, it's pretty clear to me why Ron bears the brunt of her sarcasm (I just love that scene).  But, like Amy, I'd have to say: why get tetchy with Harry?  He's not made chauvinistic remarks.  Ron has.

Penny


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 12 02:43:57 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:43:57 -0000
Subject: Ron, Fleur and Hermione
In-Reply-To: <300BC221.079EB7F7.6E93A4F5@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <a95hld+u2je@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37747

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote:
> I'd like to follow up Barb's excellent analysis of the interactions 
> between Hermione, Ron and Fleur with some commentary on the very 
> final Hogwarts scene in GOF.
> 
> Fleur mentions to Harry that she may return to practice her 
> English.  Ron says, in a strangled sort of voice, that it is very 
> good already, and Hermione glowers (this is the famous semicolon, I 
> believe).
> 
> What of Hermione's glower?  I suggest it shows that she, too, still 
> has a little learning to do.  If she is merely glowering at Fleur, 
> then she appreciates her less than we as readers are being led to 
> rough the second task.  If, OTOH, she is glowering at Ron's 
> behaviour, then I think she is missing a major trick, as it should 
> indicate to her that she will be dealing with a new improved Ron in 
> future, if she gives him a chance.
> 
I have a question about Veelas and their magic. I don't have my copy 
of Fantastic Beasts (which wasn't that exhaustive or even correct 
about the beings in it). Does it name the magic of Veelas? We know 
they can charm (control, hypnotize, whatever...) men, but I'm 
wondering haw it might affect women.

I remember an obscure character in a story I once read, an alien 
woman who instantly charmed men and at the same time repelled other 
women. I suggest that the Veela heritage is two-fold. As Ron and 
Harry seem mesmerized, isn't it feasable that the same magic repelled 
Hermione (with a magical intensity beyond normal jealousy!)

Also, just as Harry (and Ron to a lesser extent) worked beyond the 
magical attraction and Harry at least got to know her as a person, 
wouldn't Hermione recognize the magical jealousy and work around it?

ALSO if my prediction is true, Fleur might come to Hogwart's as a 
teaching assistant. If Hermione had to work closely with Fleur, how 
would she handle it?

Uncmark




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Fri Apr 12 04:12:40 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 04:12:40 -0000
Subject: Hermione's Choice  (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <a94gkl+2aaf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a95mro+ueoh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37748

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" <lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> Barb wrote:
>  
> > "All the good-looking ones taken, Ron?" said Hermione loftily 
> > [perhaps including herself here, since she is in fact 
> > taken], "Eloise Midgen starting to look quite pretty now, is 
she?  
> > Well, I'm sure you'll find someone *somewhere* who'll have you."
> > 
> > OUCH!  Somehow, though, she doesn't feel the need to needle 
Harry, 
> > and she WAS just nagging him previously about working on the 
egg, 
> so 
> > it's not like she's walking on eggshells around him or anything.


Amy wrote:
> The reason she needles Ron instead of Harry here is that it was 
Ron, 
> not Harry, who admitted that the plan was to ask the best-looking 
> girl who would have him, even if she's completely horrible.  Why 
pick 
> on Harry at this point?  All he's done is get turned down.  He 
didn't 
> insult Eloise Midgen or treat Hermione like a useful commodity 
("you 
> can go with one of us"--as Hermione would say, "Honestly!").


Actually, the reason she needles Ron in this conversation is that 
it's a continuation of the previous exchange where Fred tells Ron 
and Harry that they had better hurry up and ask someone or all the 
*good ones* will be gone.  Ron goes on to say to Harry:
"'We *should* get a move on, you know...ask someone.  He's right.  
We don't want to end up with a pair of trolls'. Hermione let out a 
splutter of indignation. 'A pair of ...what, excuse me?'
<exchange about Eloise Midgen>
'Oh, I see,' Hermione said, bristling.  'So basically, you're going 
to take the best-looking girl who'll have you, even if she's 
completely horrible?'
'Er - yeah, that sounds about right,' said Ron.'
Hermione seems to be taking this attitude a bit too personally, and 
is quick to throw it in Ron's face later when he has been turned 
down.  I don't really think that it's Eloise Midgen she's defending 
here.
I also don't think that she's unaware of Harry's interest in Cho, 
either.  After all, she's there along with Ron when Harry sees Cho 
at the World Cup and spills the water all over himself, as well as 
later at Hogwarts when she tells both of them to *put their eyes 
back in*.  If Ron knows Harry likes Cho, then Hermione surely has 
picked up on it.  She just doesn't seem to have any particular 
feelings about it (unlike her reaction to Ron's obvious interest in 
Fleur ;--).


Jo Serenadust




From catlady at wicca.net  Fri Apr 12 07:09:54 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:09:54 -0000
Subject: Warlock (was: Why do Muggles get a capital letter?
In-Reply-To: <3CB61361.EAD0A375@qnet.com>
Message-ID: <a96182+e4td@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37749

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Silvercat <silvercat at q...> wrote:

> 
> finwitch wrote:
> > Seems to me that Warlock is some sort of title or achievement. 
> > Like Dumbledore's... Chief Warlock, Order of Merlin, First Class,
> > Grand Sorceror... Did I get it right? I wonder if some of these
> > titles> proves more meaningful in Order of Phoenix than we may 
> > think.
> 
> I forgot about that.  I was referring to the traditional sense.  
> Hmmm. Maybe something like an Ph.D.? But what would Grand Sorceror
> be? Maybe it refers to different types. 

Dumbledore's letterhead: 
HOGWARTS SCHOOL of WITCHCRAFT and WIZARDRY

Headmaster: ALBUS DUMBLEDORE

(Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorc., Chf. Warlock, Supreme
Mugwump, International Confed. of Wizards)

I take that to mean 

1) Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorceror
=== I hypothesize that this means that the Order of Merlin is the only 
award the British MoM offers, so it comes in finely subdivided 
degrees: 
Order of Merlin, Second  Class. 
Order of Merlin, First Class. 
Order of Merlin, First Class, Sorceror. 
Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorceror.

2) Chief Warlock
=== Canon offers us International Confederation of Wizards, 
International Confederation of Warlocks, International Federation of 
Warlocks, the Warlocks' Convention of 1709, and the International 
Warlock Convention of 1289 (all summarized in one easy place in 
Steve's Lexicon: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/titles.html ) 
and also tells us (in QTTA) that the Wizards' Council was the 
predecessor of the Ministry of Magic.

I believe that International [Con]Federation of Wizards/Warlocks is 
all the same thing, and that the (merely national) Warlocks' 
Convention is the same as Wizards' Council. From that idiosyncratic 
belief, I have deduced that 'warlock' means an elected representative 
to a representative assembly (e.g. a Member of Parliament). I imagine 
that Chief Warlock was the title that Barberus Bragge had as Chief of 
the Wizards' Council in the 13th century, but has descended in the 
modern day to being an honorary title for retired (defeated) Minister 
of Magic or Vice-Minister or leader of the opposition party...

3) Supreme Mugwump (of) International Confederation of Wizards
===I imagine that the boss-man of the ICW is called Supreme Mugwump 
rather than Chancellor. Past Supreme Mugwumps might retain the title 
for life.

> Warlock could be expertise
> in transfiguration, curses, potions (the darker, more witchy
> /medicine men/shaman stuff), while Sorceror is charms... (the 
> lighter stuff - more wand waving).  I know in Anthropology 
> witchcraft and sorcery have different meanings. Lessee... Ah! 
> 'sorcery involves the use of rites and spells [...] we define 
> witchcraft as the use of psychic power alone.' Okay, I've got the 
> connotation's backward.  Maybe Warlocks are more nature-stuff 
> [beasts, potions] and Sorcerors are more, ummm, the other stuff.

IIRC Transfiguration involves wand waving. Anyway, the distinction 
that anthropologists draw between 'witchcraft' and 'sorcery' is a 
distinction that was never intended to apply universally: it was 
written by one Evans-Pritchard who was trying to describe the 
different types of magic believed in by the Azande people in Africa, 
and he arbitrarily assigned English names to the types instead of 
calling them something really imaginative like Type 1 and Type 2.




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Apr 12 11:40:54 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:40:54 -0000
Subject: Aurors & the war v terror was Re: Crouch Sr/Jr + WW + DE's mark
In-Reply-To: <a94725+jpmi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a96h46+urqj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37750

Grey Wolf wrote:

> Wars involve some sort of big confrontation, like two armies facing 
> each other, or invasion by numbers. Voldemort's Reign of Terror is 
> exactly what's implied in it's name: terrorism, trying to take over 
a country by frightening everyone into submission.
> 
snip

A  possible example of the Aurors vs. DeathEaters similarity is North 
> Ireland's terrorism problem, and the way the English goverment 
tried to solution it: by going in with the army. The trouble is that 
the motives  of one and another are not comparable, but the situation 
is (more or less) the same.
.
I've thought about the comparison between the Aurors and the British 
Army, and their respective fights against terrorism, But I can't 
really see a connection. I think you're right, the motives were very 
different and the situation vastly different.

(Arguably), the problems in NI came about through centuries of 
oppression. The "Troubles" though stem from the fact that the 
majority of the people in whats now NI voted to remain part of the 
UK. The Catholic Minority wished to be part of EIRE. The fact that 
the Northern Catholics felt like secondary citisens only added weight 
to their feelings of oppression. However, they were part of a 
democratic process. The supporters of Voldemort start from a very 
different vantage point: They seem to represent the "Old Order" and 
are in effect involved in a Counter-Revolution against a more 
inclusive Wizarding World as visualised by the likes of Dumbledore. 
The fact that we see the Old Elite as represented by Malfoy against 
barely accepted newcomers like the Werewolf Lupin and the half-giant 
Hagrid is no coincidence.

It would seem to me that the terrorism in Northern Ireland had - at 
least - at its roots a basis for disquiet, and is therefore very 
different to the terrorists under Voldemort who act to preserve their 
self interest - not to gain it.

The British Army were sent into NI to try and maintain a peace 
between 2 opposing but linked communities. The fact that the Army was 
indelibly linked to one side, made this task impossible. However the 
Aurors appear to be individuals fighting against other individuals - 
who unlike some terrorists in NI- do not seem to have been hailed as 
heroes by their own community. A very different scenario. Of course, 
once terrorism takes hold, the feelings of fear it brings will differ 
little whatever its original beginnings. As an ex-Londoner, I have 
vivid memories of hearing - and feeling a bomb go off 1/4 mile from 
my home in the 1970s, and again another bomb going off in my new town 
of Reading, only a few years ago.

 Are you arguing that the British Army stooped to a level that was no
 better than the terrorists they were fighting? It is certainly 
stated in canon that some on the "Goodside" of JKR's war against 
terror used methods such as the Unforgiveable Curses, conviction 
without trial, which seems to me to have toppled them from their 
moral highground. The British Army made some terrible "mistakes", and 
the Government did at one time use Internment as a way of gathering 
suspected, but unconvicted terrorists. Perhaps on this aspect, at 
least there are some similarities.

Ali

This is certainly not an argument in favour of terrorism - which I 
deplore - only a recognition that its necessary to understand its 
root causes, before it can be stamped out.




From Ahketsi at aol.com  Fri Apr 12 01:36:29 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:36:29 EDT
Subject: Hermione's Choice [was] Ginny (SHIP)
Message-ID: <143.cbb03cd.29e7941d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37751

"Throughout all four of the books, Hermione doesn't pay the same kind 
of attention to the other boys, not Harry nor for that matter Viktor.  
Hermione has also never warmed to Ron's many objects of teenage 
passion but had no jealousy about Harry's sole crush, Cho.  She did 
however find Viktor's stalkers annoying but not because she saw them 
as competition for Viktor's attention."   -- ms_petra_pan

I don't think Hermione's obvious annoyance of Ron's infauation with Fleur had 
anything to do with her fancying him. She was just frustrated with him 
because he was only interested in her because she was pretty. She didn't 
particularly like Fleur because she showed many signs of being conceited, not 
because she was jealous because Ron liked her.

You claim that Hermione didn't have a problem with Harry's liking Cho. Well, 
that was never an issue because Harry hardly ever expressed his feelings for 
Cho, and when he did "They make them OK at Hogwarts," (Goblet of Fire), she 
showed her impatience with this: "'When you both put your eyes back in" said 
Hermione briskly, 'you'll be able to see who's just arrived.'" 

I also believe that Hermione was annoyed by Fleur's fan club only because she 
is annoyed that they are very obviuosly only interested in him because he is 
famous and also because they disrupt her concentration. I do not believe that 
she was very much attracted to Krum until he approached her. 

I don't think that Hermione has any romantic feelings towards Harry or Ron, 
though that may change in time. Same with the boys, I don't think Harry or 
Ron have any feelings towards Hermione beyond a close friendship. For now. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Ahketsi at aol.com"




From skelkins at attbi.com  Fri Apr 12 12:59:38 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:59:38 -0000
Subject: A Few Short Percy Apologetics
Message-ID: <a96lnq+ivrc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37752

Hullo.  Weighing in a little late here, I'm afraid, but I just
had to deliver a couple of Percy apologetics.  Because, you 
know, guys, Percy is just *so* not evil!

----------

On Percy and the Rules:

Penny wrote:

> Has Percy learned his lesson about blind adherence to rules? 

Hmmm.

You know, I've never quite been sure where this notion that Percy 
is such a blind follower of rules comes from in the first place.
He really doesn't seem to me to be that type at all.  

In Chapter Seven of PS ("The Sorting Hat"), when Dumbledore
announces that the third floor corridor is out of bounds "to
everyone who does not wish to die a very painful death," Percy
has the following exchange with Harry:


"Harry laughed, but he was one of the few who did.

'He's not serious?'  he muttered to Percy.

'Must be,' said Percy, frowning at Dumbledore.  'It's odd, because he
usually gives us a reason why we're not allowed to go somewhere - the
forest's full of dangerous beasts, everyone knows that.  I do think
he might have told us Prefects, at least.'"


That doesn't strike me as at *all* the reaction of a believer in
blind obedience to the rules.  Far to the contrary, it is the
behavior of an independent thinker who fully *expects* for there
to be some explanation given for a new rule.  When no explanation
is forthcoming, Percy is disturbed and troubled.  

Nor does Percy expect his subordinates to accept regulations blindly.
His explanation to first-year Harry of the reason that the Forbidden 
Forest is off-limits shows that when Percy does understand the 
reasons for the rules, he is not only willing to share them with the 
younger students, but even goes out of his way to volunteer such 
information.  He's not a blind follower, and he's not a martinet, 
either.


-----


On Percy and 'Prefects Who Gained Power:'


People keep bringing up that scene in CoS in which Harry and Ron
catch Percy in the junk shop, poring over the copy of 'Prefects
Who Gained Power.'  When Ron teases him about it, Percy snaps: "Go
away."  Many people seem to have read this as evidence that Percy 
is actually madly ambitious, so ambitious that he is both secretive
and defensive about it.

Er...was I the only person who assumed that Percy was actually
hanging around in that junk shop because he had previously 
arranged to meet Penelope Clearwater there?  From what Ron 
and the Twins say about his behavior over the summer, I think 
that we can safely assume that he'd been corresponding with 
her.  When he takes his leave from the rest of the Weasleys 
outside of Gringotts, he does so by "muttering vaguely about 
needing a new quill."  Ron and Harry run into him *very* 
shortly thereafter.  If he needs a new quill, then what is 
he doing in a junk shop, a shop which the text emphasizes 
quite strongly sells nothing but old and fairly useless items?

I thought it fairly clear on rereading that what was really
happening there was that Percy had previously arranged to 
meet Penny in this obscure little shop, a place that he had
*thought* would be safe from his younger siblings, and that 
he was waiting for her to arrive when Ron and Harry stumbled 
across him.  He was quite understandably annoyed, and desperate 
to get rid of them, and that was why he snapped so rudely at Ron.

Of course, I'm sure that he found the book perfectly interesting.
But this notion that his defensiveness in that scene is due 
to some unwholesome degree of ambition is pure misdirection, IMO.  
After all, at that point in the novel, JKR is setting Percy 
up as a red herring in a big, big way.


-----


On Percy and Favoritism:


Whirdy wrote:

> Equally fascinating and perhaps a point of discussion I may 
> have missed is the fact that Percy assessed points against 
> Gryffindor when Ron was disrespectful to Percy "Prefect." Later, 
> Ron as Crabbe confronts Percy and Draco Malfoy is told that he 
> should "show a bit more respect to a school prefect," Percy does 
> not cry out "five points against Slytherin" for their disrespect.


Percy would seem to be quite concerned about the appearance of 
favoritism, and at times goes overboard in his efforts to avoid it.

There's another example of this tendency in the first book, right 
after both Harry and Ron are sorted into Gryffindor.  Percy greets 
Harry in a perfectly friendly and normal manner, by standing up and 
shaking his hand.  His greeting to Ron, on the other hand, ("Well 
done, Ron, excellent"), is stilted, awkward, and undeniably pompous.  
(In fact, it warrants Percy's very first "pompously" in the entire 
series, quite a precedent!)  I tend to view this as a sign of his 
discomfort: he doesn't want to appear to be showing any favoritism 
to his brother, and so he tries for formality -- and just plain fails 
to pull it off.

It is an interesting trait in light of his later identification with
Crouch, though, isn't it?  All the same, I don't know if I'm prepared
to believe that five points from Gryffindor falls into quite the
same category as conviction to life in prison on the basis of scanty
evidence.

And besides, in the end poor old Crouch *did* value his family 
relations over the rules, didn't he.  Much to his detriment.


------

On Percy and his family:


There's, uh, material here for an essay, to be sure, but just a 
few minor points for now.

Percy's conflict between his extra-familial relationships and his 
familial ones is a running motif throughout all four books.  In the
first book, his extra-familial relationships are represented by his
Prefect friends, in the second by Penelope Clearwater, in the third
by both Penelope and his affiliation with the staff of Hogwarts, and
in the fourth by Crouch and the Ministry.  

Given that Percy is a teenager, I always find myself wondering why
people find this so very striking.  Isn't it normal for teenagers to
begin to value their extra-familial relationships quite highly, while 
they start to feel slightly annoyed and restricted by their familial 
ties?  This tendency of Percy's is certainly an ongoing source of 
tension within the Weasley family dynamic, but is it really so odd as 
to warrant such great suspicion?


Debbie wrote:

> In PS/SS, after putting on his robes and prefect badge the minute 
> he crossed the barrier at Platform 9 3/4, Percy rushes off to the 
> prefects' compartments, leaving his family on the platform. 

Yup, agreed.  He just can't *wait* to get his farewells over with so
that he can get away from his Mum and his little siblings and go be
with people his own age instead.

To my mind, this shows that Percy is guilty of the terrible sin of 
being a perfectly normal fifteen-year-old boy.  


> That he chose to associate with the prefects all term is evident 
> from the fact that George has to demand that he spend Christmas day 
> with the family.

The Twins do bully him into wearing his Weasley sweater, true, and 
they insist that he eat Christmas dinner with them.  But although 
Percy makes his feeble protests, he not only does eat dinner with 
them (when, in truth, there was actually no way that the Twins could 
have forced him to do so), but he also spends the entire rest of the 
*day* with them.  He has a snowball fight with them, and then he 
goes back to the Gryffindor common room with them and watches Harry 
and Ron play chess.

This is a fifteen-year-old, mind.  Spending the entire day horsing 
around with two thirteen-year-olds and two eleven-year-olds, instead
of spending the time with people his own age.  It's only a couple of
years' age difference, but those are important years.

And besides, if he hadn't wanted the Twins to manhandle him into his
Weasley sweater and then march him down to dinner with them, then he 
wouldn't have poked his head into the first-year common room in the 
first place, would he?  I mean, complaining that they're making too 
much noise?  On Christmas morning?  When there are hardly any 
students around in the first place?  Puu-leeze.  Even for Percy, that 
would really be a bit much.  Me, I think that he wanted to hang out 
with them all along.


I think that Percy likes his family just fine.  Well...in the first
book, anyway.  

By the end of GoF, I still think that he loves them, but I also think 
that he's 'way overdue for moving out of the Burrow and into a place 
of his own.



-- Elkins, always happy to fly the PINE banner




From Jefrigo21 at aol.com  Fri Apr 12 12:58:15 2002
From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:58:15 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Warlock (was: Why do Muggles get a capital letter?
Message-ID: <bc.24d23118.29e833e7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37753

In a message dated 4/12/02 2:10:40 AM Central Daylight Time, 
catlady at wicca.net writes:


> Mugwump

I know this is a really really short post but what the heck is a 
Mugwump???????I hope we will find out soon.  This 'mugwump' is bothering me 
now because you all brought it up.  

BTW Muggle is a proper name in Wizard/Witch case.  It is like saying what 
people been mentioning American, British, German, Irish, Italian, Canadian, 
and so fourth. It is almost like if the wizards and witches live in their own 
country.  We know they do not and they live among the Muggles.

Joanna (who should have been keeping up with the post but has been too 
involved in trying to study for school)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Fri Apr 12 13:17:13 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:17:13 +1000
Subject: Trio dynamics, *more* Animagi, STUDMUFFIN Snape
Message-ID: <030001c1e226$624e0740$ef0ddccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37754

Penny (quoting Petra Pan):
>>I read each instance of Hermione's jealous reaction to Ron goggling at other 
girls / women / veelas, I thought "Aww...isn't that sweet...they both 
like each other <<
> As best I recall, Ron only oogles Fleur specifically (and, like Harry, the veela in general at the Quidditch World Cup, although in the case of the QWC, Hermione pulls *Harry* down to his chair & seems exasperated with *him* & not *Ron*)<

You know, I suspect in this case that Hermione expects... *better* from Harry.  In fact, as I ranted once long ago, both Hermione and Ron seem to feel a bit out of their depth with Harry, a little awed by the enormity of what he has had to deal with compared with their own (safely adolescent) problems.  Hermione bickers with and mothers Ron, but treats Harry more like an equal, or even superior.  Certainly as an independent person whom she does not feel she has a right to tell what to do.  Remember the interesting little illustration of group dynamics in PoA Chapter 10, in Honeydukes?

Hermione says *to Ron*: "Look, Harry still shouldn't be coming into Hogsmeade, he hasn't got a signed form!" (etc.), then a little later, Harry says to Hermione, *grinning*, "Are you going to report me?"

Can't help feeling that if *Ron* was the transgressor here Hermione would have had no qualms about letting 'im have it directly, none of these worried exchanges with a third party.  And that grin of Harry's clearly shows he's confident she won't report him.


Rohit:
> After reading about the suggestion of a romantic tryst
between Krum and Hermione in their partially
transfigured animal forms all i have to say is, "Eww,
a cat and a SHARK???"  Talk about something being
"violently wrong." :P<

Pity we don't, so far, have an Animagus couple on board, where we could check out this theory.  Our only female Animagus so far is a beetle, and that doesn't seem promising for Shipping.  The only male Animagus of anywhere near compatible size is, er, Wormtail.  Ew.  Although, we could have a little worm/beetle creepy crawly invertebrate bonding there.  Unless of course you go for the Dumbledore as bumblebee Animagus option.

Hmmm... that makes me muse on something.

Now, the fact that Snape is so frequently described as bat-like has many a member frothing at the bit and declaring him a vampire.  However, there is a notable lack of froth regarding another character who is regularly described as insect-like.  Thin, green-sequinned, with bulbous eyes and a *winged* armchair...  could the Sultry Sybill be a *dragonfly Animagus*??  Is *this* the scurrilous Skeeterish scheme she uses to get information to improve her hit rate between genuine visitations from fate?

Roll up, roll up for S.T.A.F.F. B.A.N.D.A.I.D. (Sybill Trelawney, A Fortune-telling Fraud But A Nifty Dragonfly Animagus In Disguise)...

Cindy:
> Actually, there's reason to believe that Trelawney has had a romantic 
interest in the past.  See, I think Trelawney has been pursuing Snape 
lately, perhaps hoping to re-kindle what they once shared.<

My, for a greasy-haired, sullen, sallow crank, Snape certainly pulls the chicks.
>Indeed, the moment that Dumbledore seats Trelawney between Snape and 
McGonagall, McGonagall becomes waspish with Trelawney.  During 
Christmas dinner, no less. Snape, on the other hand, doesn't converse 
with either McGonagall or Trelawney for the rest of the dinner
>
>Could it be that McGonagall dislikes Trelawney not because McGonagall 
dislikes Divination, but because she doesn't approve of Trelawney's 
sly efforts to lure Snape to the North Tower?<

Hey, why stop at Trelawney?  Why not make the waspishness (another insect reference!) of Minerva stem from Minerva's *own* unrequited passion for Snape?  All that bickering about Quidditch, tsk tsk.  Flirtation, that's what it is.  And note how practically *all* the other staff, except Dumbledore and Filch (see Kitty-Gro FLIRTIAC on the latter), shun Snape for his womanising ways.  No wonder he's surly.  Then again, perhaps the surliness is a mere pose, assumed because it turns him from greasy sallow sulker to brooding, mysterious, eloquent chick magnet!  Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen!

Cindy:
> the central premise of LOLLIPOPS, as we all know, is that Snape loved Lily.  But where is 
it written that Snape is a one-witch man?  I haven't seen a thing in 
the LOLLIPOPS backstory or canon that means that Snape loved Lily to 
the exclusion of Sibyll.  I think he loved Lily (which explains his 
dislike of Harry), but he loved Trelawney, too.  There was more than 
enough Severus to go around for all the witches, I think. <

Still imprisoned in the bowels of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, Captain Tabouli's brow develops a scowl, which she hastily smooths out, reminding herself of her inclusivity policy.  She herself favours Snape as a one-witch man, because it makes the tragedy of losing his one witch, first to James, and then to Voldemort, all the more poignant and angst-ridden.  Lily as lost jewel of the harem just lacks that certain... Edge.  However, given that she gave a bigamy berth to Rita and whipped her up an E.L.F.T.A.B.B.Y. (Enough Love For Two!  Alliance for Benevolent Bigamist Yearnings) badge, she reluctantly concludes that she cannot subsequently discriminate against Snape the sex god surrounded by groupies.  The Captain wearily redirects Cindy down to the corridor she has now dubbed "The Tunnel of Love" over the PA system, and organises for a new badge, which declares Snape a S.T.U.D.M.U.F.F.I.N. (Snape, The Ultimate Dreamboat, Makes Uncountable Females Favour Immediate Nuptials).

Elfundeb:
> Snape (...) is too smart not to have realized very quickly that participating in pointless Muggle killings isn't 
any kind of control worth having.   No wonder he became disillusioned with the DE's. <
>
>What amazes me, though,  is how he could ever have been persuaded to join 
them in the first place.  Could he not have known what it would be like, that 
their only purpose was to serve Voldemort?  Did Voldemort lure him with false 
promises?   Though I hold to the idea that it was general disillusionment 
with the 'good' side's apparent failure to adhere to principles that pushed 
him in the direction his Slytherin gang was heading (still confused as to the 
name of this theory), it must have taken an enormous amount of 
disillusionment - way more than the Prank could offer, or L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., 
or both. <

Ah, but the mega-version of LOLLIPOPS links all of these (see my 6th November post, "Severus Snape: The Grudge and the very long LOLLIPOPS biography).  Snape was bitter and mistrustful right from the day he started Hogwarts knowing more curses than half the seventh years.  Makes him a pretty good candidate for the Dark Side from the age of 11, don't you think?  *Then*, he gets sorted into the widely maligned Slytherin, *and* spends his adolescence with a crowd of Voldemort sympathising peers at an age where one would imagine the attitudes of his peers would be having maximum influence over him.  *And* the leader of the "good side", Dumbledore, makes Snape's arch-enemy James Potter a Quidditch star and Head Boy.

Frankly, I'm not suprised he went over to Voldemort.  All the indicators are there.  He was 17, he was angry, he was in Slytherin, he had reason to resent the good side, he bore grudges, he studied curses, all his friends did it.

What's more surprising is that he appeared to devote a lot of his life snooping about trying to smear the Marauders (James, Remus, Sirius, Peter), to the extent that Sirius is so irritated that he snaps and tells him to check out the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack.  Why??

Dumbledore compares the situation with the loathing between Harry and Draco.  OK, so Draco tries to get Harry into trouble, and succeeds.  Why?  It appears to be personal, as much as anything: Draco tried to curry favour with the high-status, famous Harry Potter and was rebuffed rudely in favour of a lowlife Weasley.  The impudence!  Then, Draco teases Harry's fellow Gryffindor Neville and Harry successfully nabs the Remembrall back... and then gets made Seeker on the strength of it.  Shame and envy.  Isn't it likely that Snape's loathing of James also had a personal basis?

Now, I can't see suspicious, curse-happy 11yo Snape trying to make friends with James Potter and getting rebuffed.  Hardly.  And yes, James becomes a Quidditch star, but unless there's a lot more to it this is hardly a personal affront to Severus.  Lots of people from enemy houses get onto Quidditch teams... why pick out James for particular resentment?  Which leaves us with shame and envy.  Sure, on the information we currently have, there could have been all sorts of things about James Snape envied, or situations in which Snape was shamed at James' hands.  However, given that being a sports star is widely believed to attract girls (?), and Snape was an oily, sullen and probably unattractive loser, not to mention Snape's immediate, unaccountable hatred for Harry before he even opens his mouth, and Hagrid's inside knowledge that there was *definitely* more to the James/Snape scenario than he could tell 11yo Harry...

...I'd say there's a good chance that the thing James had which Snape envied, and for which Snape plunged himself into a shame so intense he spent the rest of his schooldays trying to avenge it, was Lily.

AV:
> Now we're probably not going to read about Snape's kitten in book 5, 
alas. Any theories on where this kitten came from? Just wandered in? 
Innocent child of a torrid, illicit alliance perhaps involving Mrs. 
Norris? (Or McGonagall even, but I think Mrs. Norris is more likely).<

You mean, the irritating yet adorable love-child/kitten of a tryst between *Snape* and Mrs Norris?  Cor.  O' course, it could just be that Mrs Norris gave Snape custody of her illegitimate child, but why?  Could Filch have begged Snape, his only friend and a proper, powerful wizard, to transfigure briefly into cat form and seduce her on his behalf (from Filch with love?), resulting in his fair feline daughter?  (I think we have another candidate for the EW series here...)

Cor.  There's no stopping this Snape Studmuffin, is there?  Mark this one with an A.U.T.U.M.N. A.S.T.E.R.I.S.K. (An Unauthorised Tranfiguration Unites Mrs Norris And Snape, The Eventual Result Is Sassy Kitten)...

After issuing this acronym, the MAGIC machine chugs to a gentle halt, and Captain Tabouli falls silent.  Eight days now she has been locked in her cabin, fed only with acronym requests and occasional glimpses of news through the porthole.  Just when she has abandoned all hope, and is sadly reaching for the glass-cutter to grind her way to freedom, she hears footsteps outside in the corridor, and a faint click at the door.  Hardly daring to hope, she tiptoes to the door and turns the handle.  To her amazement and delight, it opens, deluging her in a flood of 460 HPFGU posts...

Tabouli of the finally fixed email account.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Apr 12 13:32:57 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:32:57 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: WW name trends (was No more alphabet, please)
Message-ID: <128.fc2371d.29e83c09@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37755

Elkins:
> The post-war, pre-Voldemort generation seems to be divided along 
> lines of heritage, or perhaps even lines of political affiliation.  
> Proud Old Families seem to prefer to stick with their old-fashioned 
> naming traditions.  So the Crouches are Bartemii, and Fudge is a 
> Cornelius.  The Malfoys are Lucius and Narcissa.  Bagman, whose 
> manner of speaking of good old *Augustus* Rookwood in his Penseive 
> appearance would seem to indicate that his family was very much 
> tied into the old boy network of the Wizarding World, is named Ludo.

An interesting conversation, this. Is Fudge of the post war generation? I 
always think he is older.
Ludo Bagman is an interesting case. He's always known as Ludo, but IIRC, in 
the penseive, his name is given as Ludovic.
Could his abbreviated name be an allusion by those who know him (or by JKR) 
to his propensity to play (when not being Ever-so Evil, of course) rather 
than take things seriously? 
Ludo is Latin for I play; Ludovic means famous warrior, according to my 
dictionary. Could be the indicating the character of one who squanders his 
ability. 

OTOH, Ludovic is derived from the Latin Ludovicus. My Latin's extremely 
rusty, but that still has the game element in it. 

Oh and just to throw in my two knuts on one or two other name things that 
have come up recently. Blaise is a boys's name, as in Blaise Pascal, the 17th 
century French mathematician/ theologian. IIRC, his (the student's) surname 
isn't particularly English sounding. Percy isn't necessarily short for 
Percival, it  can stand alone, derived from the surname. Imogen (not Imogene, 
which I have come across as an American variant) is not an untypical Muggle 
name, not in England anyway (I'm saying England because names do vary 
regionally within the UK). It certainly doesn't rank with Iphigenia, with 
which somebody coupled it the other day. 

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 12 14:20:54 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:20:54 -0000
Subject: A Few Short Percy Apologetics
In-Reply-To: <a96lnq+ivrc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a96qg7+54oe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37756

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <skelkins at a...> wrote:
> In Chapter Seven of PS ("The Sorting Hat"), when Dumbledore
> announces that the third floor corridor is out of bounds "to
> everyone who does not wish to die a very painful death," Percy
> has the following exchange with Harry:
> 
> "Harry laughed, but he was one of the few who did.
> 
> 'He's not serious?'  he muttered to Percy.
> 
> 'Must be,' said Percy, frowning at Dumbledore.  'It's odd, because 
> he usually gives us a reason why we're not allowed to go 
> somewhere - the forest's full of dangerous beasts, everyone knows 
> that.  I do think he might have told us Prefects, at least.'"
> 
> That doesn't strike me as at *all* the reaction of a believer in
> blind obedience to the rules.  Far to the contrary, it is the
> behavior of an independent thinker who fully *expects* for there
> to be some explanation given for a new rule.  When no explanation
> is forthcoming, Percy is disturbed and troubled.  

This is an excellent point.  Percy strikes me as being very similar 
to Hermione, really.  She wants an explanation for rules as well.  
(And interestingly enough, Ron has a similar relationship with each 
of them, involving nagging/reprimanding from Percy/Hermione and 
insolent responses from Ron--especially in the first two books.)

> On Percy and 'Prefects Who Gained Power:'
[snip] 
> Er...was I the only person who assumed that Percy was actually
> hanging around in that junk shop because he had previously 
> arranged to meet Penelope Clearwater there?  From what Ron 
> and the Twins say about his behavior over the summer, I think 
> that we can safely assume that he'd been corresponding with 
> her.  When he takes his leave from the rest of the Weasleys 
> outside of Gringotts, he does so by "muttering vaguely about 
> needing a new quill."  Ron and Harry run into him *very* 
> shortly thereafter.  If he needs a new quill, then what is 
> he doing in a junk shop, a shop which the text emphasizes 
> quite strongly sells nothing but old and fairly useless items?
> 
> I thought it fairly clear on rereading that what was really
> happening there was that Percy had previously arranged to 
> meet Penny in this obscure little shop, a place that he had
> *thought* would be safe from his younger siblings, and that 
> he was waiting for her to arrive when Ron and Harry stumbled 
> across him.  He was quite understandably annoyed, and desperate 
> to get rid of them, and that was why he snapped so rudely at Ron.
 
Okay, you're psychic, right?  I only recently came to this 
conclusion, but given that earlier in CoS, every time he's off by 
himself he seems to be doing something Penelope-related, it seems 
logical to assume that here as well.  It's even possible that he 
didn't notice the name of the book he was picking up.  He could, in 
fact, have been talking to Penelope already and had her duck down 
behind a stack of junk while he randomly grabbed a book to put in 
front of his face--and it happened to be the prefects/power book.
 
> It is an interesting trait in light of his later identification 
> with Crouch, though, isn't it?  All the same, I don't know if I'm 
> prepared to believe that five points from Gryffindor falls into 
> quite the same category as conviction to life in prison on the 
> basis of scanty evidence.
> 
> And besides, in the end poor old Crouch *did* value his family 
> relations over the rules, didn't he.  Much to his detriment.

What Crouch actually did was to value public appearances over all 
else.  He was going to do as he pleased in private, and put another 
face on entirely when in public.  Therefore he sent his son to 
prison but cooked up a plan for getting him out.  The facade is the 
most important thing to him.  I don't think he ever seriously cared 
whether his son was innocent or guilty.  He is the ultimate selfish 
person.  JKR has had this sort of character before, the chief 
example being Gilderoy Lockhart.  Lockhart wasn't quite as evil, 
however.  She gave him a rather comical comeuppance with the memory 
charm being turned on him (a taste of his own medicine).  Crouch's 
comeuppance for freeing his Death Eater son was death.  Hardly 
comical, but I believe JKR wanted the punishment to fit the crime.  
Crouch, Jr. winds up being responsible for Cedric's death and is 
almost responsible for Harry's.  Therefore Crouch, Sr., who set him 
free, dies.  She doesn't adhere to this strictly (hence we have Lily 
and James being killed by Voldemort, as well as Cedric).  But it 
certainly seems to be the case with Crouch and Lockhart.

It is this trap that Percy seems to have fallen into in GoF 
(foreshadowed by his convoluted attempts to keep his relationship 
with Penelope secret in CoS).  It is unclear whether Percy is clear 
of this danger by the end of GoF.  One of the running themes in the 
HP books is that looks can be deceiving.  Percy doesn't seem to have 
learned this yet.  (Neither has Hagrid, but his development seems to 
have been arrested at the thirteen-year-old level--which might be 
why Harry et al seem to get along with him best in PoA.)  Watching 
Percy's process of maturing is almost as fascinating as watching 
Harry's.  At this point, however, I'd have to say that Harry is 
actually more mature than Percy, but only just.  (He has a crush on 
a girl he hardly knows.)

I hope Percy trains to be an Auror or something similar...He's 
clearly bright and talented, and he managed to keep his relationship 
with Penelope a secret for quite a while in CoS.  However, I also 
have a bad feeling that he would do something self-sacrificing--
definitely NOT evil!

--Barb
     




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Fri Apr 12 14:31:28 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:31:28 +1000
Subject: PS on Animagi
Message-ID: <04ae01c1e22e$bdf1d4c0$ef0ddccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37757

(mental note to self, reread posts *before* sending and suddenly recognising pressing problem to be addressed)

Me:
> Pity we don't, so far, have an Animagus couple on board, where we could check
out this theory. Our only female Animagus so far is a beetle, and that doesn't
seem promising for Shipping. The only male Animagus of anywhere near
compatible size is, er, Wormtail. Ew. Although, we could have a little
worm/beetle creepy crawly invertebrate bonding there. Unless of course you go
for the Dumbledore as bumblebee Animagus option.<

Though I should add here that there is, of course, plenty of potential for slash couples.  IIRC, Remus/Sirius is a popular option, and, assuming Remus is in harmless wolf form and feeling frisky, a wolf and a dog is even a plausible combination.  And what fortune-telling dragonfly in need of information could resist the shiny charms of Rita the beetle?

I'm still fascinated by the unanswered question of animagus reproduction.  All you werewolf experts out there, can werewolves reproduce the normal way?  What would happen if McGonagall in cat form fell pregnant to Crookshanks?  Could Rita be laying her unspeakable eggs on Hogwarts windowsills?

It does appear that medium to large mammals of magical background can, in some way, communicate in a common language, judging by Sirius' ability to communicate with Crookshanks.  Most curious.  What say ye?  Is there some domesticable carnivores' patois or sign language?  Can Crookshanks speak in some way?  Hmmm...

Tabouli.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dicentra at xmission.com  Fri Apr 12 15:15:59 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:15:59 -0000
Subject: WW name trends (was No more alphabet, please)
In-Reply-To: <a95ekq+jbdi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a96tnf+ms9q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37758

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <skelkins at a...> wrote:
> 
> I do know that Sirius, Severus, and Remus' first names have 
> always strongly suggested to my mind that their families were 
> probably both pure-blooded and rather socially conservative,
> if not necessarily anti-muggle.  

Is Sirius named after anyone at all?  Severus and Remus come from the
classical era, but Sirius (Greek for "burning") is the dog star (it's
the brightest star of Canis Major).  I like to imagine that in
Sirius's family, all the kids were named after stars: Rigel, Deneb,
Sirius, etc. 

So I don't know if Sirius's name indicates political leanings so much
as one or both parents' astrological hobby.

And while doing a bit of research, I found this:
http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/sirius-star.html
"Sirius is also associated with liberation, in fact, according to
ancient teachings, the very concept of freedom itself resides in human
consciousness because of the influence of this star system.
Interestingly enough, the day our Sun conjuncts Sirius at 14 degrees
Cancer, is July 4th, America's Independence Day!"

The ancients refer to Sirius as a "ruddy" colored star, leading some
scientists to wonder if Sirius used to look red, which is why Sirius
was also called "bloody."  Bloody Sirius. Dog Sirius. Freedom Sirius.
 That can't be a coincidence, can it, Jo?

--Dicentra, who thinks it isn't   




From dicentra at xmission.com  Fri Apr 12 15:45:30 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:45:30 -0000
Subject: Trio dynamics, *more* Animagi, STUDMUFFIN Snape
In-Reply-To: <030001c1e226$624e0740$ef0ddccb@price>
Message-ID: <a96veq+ksfj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37759

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
> 
> Cor.  There's no stopping this Snape Studmuffin, is there?  Mark
this one with an A.U.T.U.M.N. A.S.T.E.R.I.S.K. (An Unauthorised
Tranfiguration Unites Mrs Norris And Snape, The Eventual Result Is
Sassy Kitten)...
> 

And this, my dear fellow listies, is why James wisely constructed
T.H.E. S.H.R.I.E.K.I.N.G. S.H.A.C.K. on dry land instead of making it
a dinghy or a two-man kyack or even a folded paper boat. Because in
spite of the entertaining scenarios heretofore presented, the highly
circumstantial evidence, and the endearing mannerisms of the cute
little kitty, the thing doesn't float.  Nope.  Not for a second. 
Instantly takes on water and sinks like a rock.

Which is why I love it. I'm making myself a huge T.H.E.
S.H.R.I.E.K.I.N.G. S.H.A.C.K. button marked with an A.U.T.U.M.N.
A.S.T.E.R.I.S.K.  Which is also why I can't board L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S.:
the weight of the pins will make the noble SHIP list like a drunken
sailor.

--Dicey, who is content to sit on the shore and wave

(for the acronym decoder ring, go to Inish Alley (click Database on
the left-hand menu and look for the last database in the list). Or use
this link: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=13




From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 12 18:12:47 2002
From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Names, Sorting Hat, Characters who turn good
Message-ID: <20020412181247.28453.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37760


Eileen wrote:On the whole, I've wondered at that too. What has happened to the WW 
that they so quickly switched over to a complete slate of almost 
ordinary names? Draco and Hermione are pretty much by theirselves. 
There are names that have classical backgrounds like Marcus and 
Terence, but they're still modern names



 

My Reply:Hermione is an unusual name however it is a name, JKR didn't create it herself.  I wonder if it's more common in Europe than in the states.  But my mother went to school with a girl named Hermione and that was like 30 years ago!  I think it's an unusual name..but it's not weird. It's not like a name that was created by JKR..As far as the wizard world and using odd names, I mean Okay yeah they use modern names or somewhat uncommon ones like Gilderoy, Albus, Sirius.  But I'm fairly certain they are all names that she found in some book somewhere.  

And then if were going there there is no cannon evidence that suggest that the previous genertions names were odder than the ones you have now we have  Molly, Arthur, Peter, James...I could continue but I think you get the idea..

As for the sorting hat..I think the most interesting there is a great mistery in my mind as to how certain people are sorted into what houses.  For example, I mean Percy does not remind me of a Gryffindor, he's far too ambitious!  And yes he could be brave but I have this hunch that the hat sorts by your most overriding characteristic and with Percy I would think that would ambition or intelligence and in which case he should be in Sytherin, am I correct?  Or why is Hermione in Gryffindor, not to insult her because I adore Hermione but she seems very Ravenclawish to me.  Perhaps, it gives you want you wish....but I really think that underminds the whole idea of characteristics being what sorts you.  And then if we go with the parents theory then we must assume that the Pavarati and Padma's parents must have come from two different houses, Gryffindor/Ravenclaw.  I think the parents thing is the best bet, especially considering a whole legacy thing and because most people seem to have siblings in their own family.  As far as the hat changing it's mind, I very seriously doubt it does.  The fact that the hat doesn't change it's mind is the one sole reason that I have hope for many of the characters in the story that hat knows more about you than you think.  Like Peter Pettigrew assuming that he is a Gryffindor, which I am going to because well he is..lol..I have hope that his bravery will eventually stand out and he will go against Voldemort. 

 

That goes onto my question for you all.  What characters do you think may be redeemed by the end of Harry Potter, atleast to some degree.  My favorite character that will turn good (or atleast somewhat good) is Draco Malfoy.  I've said it before JKR put scene in the book with Lucius being so hard on Draco for one reason and one reason only she wanted us to feel sympathy for Draco.  You don't put in sympathy for characters that you don't want the readers to like on some level.  Thus, I think that Draco will turn good.  Actually I think Draco has to turn good because I think in order to defeat Voldemort ALL of the houses are going to have work together.  Bringing the talents that each one holds to the for front.  And as the books go on Draco will be older and have more pull in Slytherin.  And there is still a part of me that wants Draco and Ginny to hook up..actually I could see that happening.  I think it's rather likely actually, more likely than Harry and Ginny

 

Melanie
.

 

 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From eleri at aracnet.com  Fri Apr 12 17:28:22 2002
From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:28:22 -0700
Subject: WW names
In-Reply-To: <1018563964.4810.73887.m8@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020412102011.00bcfa50@mail.aracnet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37761

Eileen said:
>On the whole, I've wondered at that too. What has happened to the WW
>that they so quickly switched over to a complete slate of almost
>ordinary names?

Voldemort? Most of the kids we see were born during or soon after the 
Voldemort war. Maybe it was a way of not attracting attention, both from 
LV, and from the Muggle world.  It's easier to blend in to Muggle society 
if your kid is named 'Marie' and not 'Featherina'
Bill and Charlie predate that, but Mr. Weasly has always been facinated by 
Muggles, so the names make sense.

Charlene






From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 12 16:41:52 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (columbiatexan)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:41:52 -0000
Subject: Scholastic news
Message-ID: <a972og+4g0i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37762

This care of Yahoo! Finance's Briefing.com In Play page--dontcha just 
love it when different serious interests of yours (in this case, 
finance/business and Harry Potter) collide:

8:37AM Scholastic Corp cut to Hold by Pru on valuation (SCHL) 56.40: 
Prudential downgrades to HOLD from Buy as stock price exceeds firm's 
$56 price target. Whiledowngrade is based on valuation, firm 
acknowledges some uncertainty exists regarding, at a minimum, the 
timing of the release of Harry Potter Book V. Firm's interest in 
SCHL's shares could be renewed if the Harry Potter-induced earnings 
volatility were reduced, perhaps through a multi-book contract with 
Ms. Rowling. 

Hmmm...

Rohit (columbiatexan)





From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com  Fri Apr 12 21:06:18 2002
From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:06:18 +0100
Subject: Snape's task - Azkaban + Favourite bit
References: <a912nl+j1g7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <029401c1e265$ec850780$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 37763

> Is it possible Snape's task at the end of GoF was to go (back?) to
> Azkaban to do something involving either the Dementers or the
> incarcerated DEs?
>
 Tee Hee Snape as Prison Guv'nor doesn't that just knock you over :-))))

>.Dumbledore teases him, and Snape knows perfectly well he's going to be
teased, but goes
>along anyway.  It was also the first moment that made me think that
>Dumbledore and Snape really are friends.

Marina

Oh at last, someone else who loves the cracker bit. Hurrah!  It always makes
me grin.  Snape plays along knowing full well that Dumbledore is going to
love the hat and the cracker and.........I just wish my crackers were half
as good.

Felicia

Really really tired of waiting for book 5, so, Seriously Bored goes off to
paint another Spell Book (faux aged finish, gold words etc., etc.,)




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Apr 12 19:32:02 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:32:02 -0000
Subject: Beastly little Snape note 
Message-ID: <a97cni+dgna@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37764

Have you noticed that Snape is the only one of the major 
wizarding characters who has neither an animal shape nor an 
animal companion? Think about it.

Harry:Hedwig
Ron:Scabbers:Pigwidgeon
Hermione:Crookshanks
Neville:Trevor
Draco Malfoy:eagle owl
Dumbledore:Fawkes
McGonagall:cat animagus
Sirius:dog animagus:Buckbeak
Hagrid:Fang
Voldemort:Nagini
Pettigrew:rat animagus
Lupin:wolf shape

Red herring or red flag?

Pippin




From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com  Fri Apr 12 21:17:15 2002
From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:17:15 +0100
Subject: Variations of Favourite Bits - the grin factor
References: <a5ji10+5eqe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02e701c1e267$6b8d0f40$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 37765

Having submitted one post, my brain (recently returned from sick leave) pounced on another.  There is one section that makes me laugh out loud - well it did when I was reading it on London Underground......

I forget the actual context without the books to hand but when Madeye Moody turns Draco Malfoy into a little white ferret and bounces him along the corridor, to the consternation of Professor Macgonagle "...is that a student?" I think are her astonished words, I laughed so much I had to get off the train (thankfully Leicester Square is fairly central !!).  Oooh I DID enjoy that bit.

However, Remus leaving in PoA invariably reduces me to tears.  Not sure why, except he has been supportive of Harry.

Felicia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sandirs at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 12 21:33:21 2002
From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:33:21 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] PS on Animagi
Message-ID: <F168HagIFzGTEkgy8AR00006748@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37766

Tabouli noted that: we don't, so far, have an Animagus couple on board, 
where we could check >out this theory. Our only female Animagus so far is a 
beetle, and that doesn't >seem promising for Shipping.


This makes me wonder if Lily had an animagus form.  Hermione is so bright and 
research-oriented, it would not surprise me if in the next volume or two, 
she cracks the transfiguration spell....

Sandi

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com





From fluxed at earthlink.net  Fri Apr 12 19:41:02 2002
From: fluxed at earthlink.net (A. Vulgarweed)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:41:02 -0500
Subject: Who's Your Kitty Daddy? Toasted STUDMUFFIN
In-Reply-To: <1018624057.3177.92352.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <l03130309b8dce0176071@[65.59.11.164]>

No: HPFGUIDX 37767

>   From: "Tabouli" <tabouli at unite.com.au>
>Subject: Trio dynamics, *more* Animagi, STUDMUFFIN Snape

>Rohit:
>Pity we don't, so far, have an Animagus couple on board, where we could
>check out this theory.  Our only female Animagus so far is a beetle, and
>that doesn't seem promising for Shipping.

Ah, but not! The very first Animagus we meet is Minerva McGonagall. Who is,
of course, a *cat*. This may be relevant, or it may not.


>The only male Animagus of anywhere near compatible size is, er, Wormtail.
>Ew.  Although, we could have a little worm/beetle creepy crawly
>invertebrate bonding there.  Unless of course you go for the Dumbledore as
>bumblebee Animagus option.

That would imply a bit of Dumbledore/Rita Skeeter SHIPping, wouldn't it?
Wow, I don't think I've seen that one even in fanfic!
>
>Hmmm... that makes me muse on something.
>
>Now, the fact that Snape is so frequently described as bat-like has many a
>member frothing at the bit and declaring him a vampire.  However, there is
>a notable lack of froth regarding another character who is regularly
>described as insect-like.  Thin, green-sequinned, with bulbous eyes and a
>*winged* armchair...  could the Sultry Sybill be a *dragonfly Animagus*??
>Is *this* the scurrilous Skeeterish scheme she uses to get information to
>improve her hit rate between genuine visitations from fate?
>
>Roll up, roll up for S.T.A.F.F. B.A.N.D.A.I.D. (Sybill Trelawney, A
>Fortune-telling Fraud But A Nifty Dragonfly Animagus In Disguise)...

Assuming Snape is a vampire simply because he's often described as bat-like
seems to require introducing another layer of gratuitous weirdness. Let's
look at a simpler possibility: He might just be a run-of-the-mill, garden
variety BAT ANIMAGUS. That, of course, could mean that Sybill's love for
him is rather...doomed. Dangerous. I think this would appeal to her.
>
>Cindy:>>Could it be that McGonagall dislikes Trelawney not because McGonagall
>dislikes Divination, but because she doesn't approve of Trelawney's
>sly efforts to lure Snape to the North Tower?<
>
>Hey, why stop at Trelawney?  Why not make the waspishness (another insect
>reference!) of Minerva stem from Minerva's *own* unrequited passion for
>Snape?

She does get *catty*, doesn't she?

>AV:
>> Now we're probably not going to read about Snape's kitten in book 5,
>alas. Any theories on where this kitten came from? Just wandered in?
>Innocent child of a torrid, illicit alliance perhaps involving Mrs.
>Norris? (Or McGonagall even, but I think Mrs. Norris is more likely).<

Tabouli:
>You mean, the irritating yet adorable love-child/kitten of a tryst between
>*Snape* and Mrs Norris?  Cor.  O' course, it could just be that Mrs Norris
>gave Snape custody of her illegitimate child, but why?  Could Filch have
>begged Snape, his only friend and a proper, powerful wizard, to
>transfigure briefly into cat form and seduce her on his behalf (from Filch
>with love?), resulting in his fair feline daughter?  (I think we have
>another candidate for the EW series here...)
>
>Cor.  There's no stopping this Snape Studmuffin, is there?  Mark this one
>with an A.U.T.U.M.N. A.S.T.E.R.I.S.K. (An Unauthorised Tranfiguration
>Unites Mrs Norris And Snape, The Eventual Result Is Sassy Kitten)...

Oh my. I think my little attempt at formulating a fun theory ran smack into
the STUDMUFFIN, with disastrous results. I didn't mean to imply that
*Snape* was the kitty daddy. That's too mEW! And wouldn't Filch have
preferred to be briefly transfigured to do the job *himself* (unless he's a
voyeur of orders of magnitude of kinkiness)? No, I merely thought that
perhaps Mrs. Norris had gone into heat--you know how women are--and gotten
herself entangled with...some Hogsmeade alley tom with a missing ear,
perhaps. Maybe Millicent Bulstrode's cat. Maybe Crookshanks--who knows,
does it matter? But in any case, Mrs. Norris was desperate to hide the
evidence of her infidelity, yet also wanted to provide for her child. So
she hides herself away when she starts to get big, gives birth to a single
kitten (remembering her human heritage; she is still not hard-wired to
squirt out a litter of six), and late one night shows up at the door of one
of the only wizards who understands her condition and has shown her
compassion in the past (and is an old flame, perhaps?), holding her little
bundle of joy by the scruff of the neck.

It can, of course, add a little more Edge if Filch finds out. Perhaps, in
his jealousy, he _suspects_, incorrectly, that Snape really is the kitten's
father. After all, Snape's a real wizard. He can do magic and everything,
unlike self-loathing, possessive Filch. (It wouldn't occur to him that
wizards have limits--there is, after all, no evidence in canon that
non-Animagi can turn themselves into animals. If it does occur to him, he
would assume that someone else must have done the transfiguring. Who's good
at Transfiguration? Dumbledore. *McGonagall*. Imagine the vast and
elaborate sexual conspiracies that could present themselves to Filch's
feverish and paranoid mind.)


AV






From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Apr 12 21:57:04 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:57:04 -0000
Subject: Beastly little Snape note
In-Reply-To: <a97cni+dgna@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a97l7g+gk3f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37768

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> Have you noticed that Snape is the only one of the major 
> wizarding characters who has neither an animal shape nor an 
> animal companion? Think about it.

<snip list of characters and their animals>
 
> Red herring or red flag?

Aha!  Obvious foreshadowing of a revelation to come.  Maybe we'll get
to see that kitten after all.

Or maybe he has a bat familiar?  No, not because he's a vampire,
dammit!  Just 'cause it's a fittingly dark and creepy familiar for
Snape to have.  And a bat would make a good familiar, wouldn't it?  It
could deliver mail, just like an owl, and also keep your home free of
insects.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 12 22:46:45 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:46:45 -0000
Subject: Crouch Sr
Message-ID: <a97o4l+dlpe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37769

Charis Julia wrote:

>> And then there's everyone's reaction to Crouch's handling of his 
>> son's crimes: Hermione whispers "Did Crouch try and get his son 
>> off?"- -What, was he supposed to do that? Evidently as the truth 
>>apparently appalls Harry: "He gave his own son to the Dementors?" 
>>he asked quietly.

DG wrote:

>Well, it IS shocking, in that quietly horrible kind of way. It's 
>shocking that the wizarding society placed Crouch in a position 
where 
>he was inprisoning his son, and it's a little intimidating that he'd 
>have the steel in him to see the job done.

I absolutely agree. It does sorta chill the blood in your veins, 
doesn't it? I don't think there can be much doubt that Barty Sr was 
indeed an inexorable, ruthless, ironfisted man. As a matter of fact I 
can relate with the trio's reaction. It * is* shocking that a man 
could treat his only son so cruelly. It is shocking that the 
wizarding legal system would allow him the power to do so. The whole 
scene, fortified by Crouch Jr's really very touching performance in 
the Pensieve trial (which incidentally I have always wondered about. 
Was he simply putting on an extremely convincing show, or was he 
actually innocent of this particular charge? We know he's an 
excellent actor of course and he certainly was a most devoted DE, 
but, well, oh, he's just so * convincing*, hang it all! Maybe he 
really was "at the wrong place, at the wrong time" as far as 
torturing the Longbottoms goes. The idea has been suggested before 
and, well, it * could* happen you know!) does nothing to promote 
respect for Crouch Sr character or magical administrative 
organization.


What I was in fact referring to here was the intentional way in which 
the reader is being lead off the scent (even though he doesn't have a 
chance in a million anyway : --) through rather dubious (as at least 
Harry's comments seams to me here) statements and conflicting (eg 
Percy v. Sirius) descriptions of his character. I don't know if 
others felt this, but the way I read the book I was definitely 
bewildered while at the same time feeling very suspicious of the very 
unfavourable way we were encouraged to view Crouch Sr.


During my first reading of GoF I spent most of the time fluctuating 
between Crouch and Bagman, trying desperately to choose between them 
for the most likely candidate for this book's Bad Guy and failing 
miserably, while all the time knowing of course that it really could 
only be anyone * but* them, but not for the life of me being able to 
guess who.


See, I was looking at authorial intent here. It just seems to me that 
the whole book is trying to built the basis for giving the reader a 
Really Big Shock (in a much more effective way than say in PS, where 
you don't really ever seriously suspected Snape) when they in fact do 
find out the truth.

I don't know. Maybe you didn't read the book like that. Or more 
probably you find all this self?evident. I never really was any good 
at seeing through mystery stories :--) I guess I was simply 
attempting to understand the ingenious workings of JKR plot. For me 
it is one of the main attractions of the books.


Further on DG suggested:


>Where I think you might get discussion over Crouch's character would 
>be over *motivation*, not action.


Motivation, huh? Yes, that definitely is a very good question. After 
all Crouch Sr's behaviour is rather bizarre to say the least. He 
convicts his son, disowns him and goes * faaaar* out of his way to 
leave no doubt he absolutely, definitely, positively despises the 
boy. . . and then turns a flip?flop right in our face and comes up 
with a cunning and elaborate plan to rescue Barty, pulls it off and 
spends the next decade or so harbouring and controlling him. Why?


Well, you can take your pick really. Personally I think we've got a 
whole hotch potch of different feelings and considerations all 
jumbled up into one frenzied emotional * explosion*. In the Pensieve 
Crouch actually * loses his cool*. Imagine.


For starters I wouldn't be so quick to write off the career thing. In 
long run of course it would seem to have been chucked to the dogs, 
but initially I' d say the sudden threat on his reputation would have 
taken him by surprise and not left him enough time to take in the 
situation and re--adjust his priorities. Plus at that time it would 
still appear possible that his career was still salvable.


Justice? Hmmm, I don't know about that. He would probably have tried 
to convince himself that was really what the whole matter was about, 
but, nah, I don't buy it. Morals don't strike me as Crouch Sr's 
highest value in life. Contrast Crouch's behaviour at the Trial to 
Neville's when he stands up to the Trio in PS. Howling abuse at 
someone you love is not something you do when you're harming them 
against your will for the Greater Good. It's something you do when 
you're just really, really pissed off with them.


Which I think is mainly what Crouch Sr is feeling at the Trial. What 
the whole scene reminds me of more than anything else is a really bad 
family row blown * way* out of proportion and set up for public 
display. 


Crouch Sr is just being plain * stubborn* (and I think he's got a lot 
of that in him when he wants to). What has him in such a flap here 
is, to my way of reading him, not so much his reputation, or career, 
or Justice and no, not even the fact that his son did Evil. I think 
what really got to him was that Jr Disobeyed His Word.


Which is also where I see Barty Sr setting off wrong with his son 
from the very beginning . Jr could not have been instilled with such 
rigid ideas of Good and Evil as his father proudly exhibits. Crouch 
probably just delivered the lecture and skipped the explanation. He 
would not have seen it as necessary? his son should do what he says 
simply because he says it. Unfortunately however this left Barty Jr 
not only resentful of his father's iron fist but also sadly 
susceptible to Voldemort's "There is no good and evil?only power and 
those too weak to seek it" persuasive little speech.


Now. Does that really cut it? Can smouldering pride really pull off 
explaining such an outburst from such an apparently always 
constrained individual? Yeah, I know, bit of a long shot, huh? Ah, 
but you see what we're missing here is the obvious: Crouch Sr is 
really a brilliant actor.


Yup. That's where Jr got it from. Barty Crouch Sr was acting every 
day of his life. He was the kind of actor people can only be in 
everyday life: an expert of disguising his true emotions and 
masquerading around as something he's really not. His last decade is 
of course a prime example of this, though I'd say he got into the 
habit long before that. That's exactly why he's always is so 
constrained: It's all a show. 


Silvercat wrote:


>I think it was just basic denial, trying to divorce his feelings 
>from what he *had* to do.


Well, yeah. I guess I'm trying to say about the same thing really. At 
the Trial he gave the greatest performance of his life. He's acting 
but, see, the audience aren't really the people around. It's himself.


Or at least that's my reading of Crouch. Others probably saw him 
completely differently. He is after all a rather complex character to 
whose personality little insight is offered.

Incidently DG, you mention that 

>later we find out 
>that not only was Jr guilty, but Sr *knew* he was guilty. 

Is this actually specified in the book? I can't seem to remember any 
such comment. Obviously my whole reading of Crouch doesn't work *at 
all* if so.


Charis Julia.





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Apr 12 23:36:34 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:36:34 -0000
Subject: Who's Your Kitty Daddy? Toasted STUDMUFFIN
In-Reply-To: <l03130309b8dce0176071@[65.59.11.164]>
Message-ID: <a97r22+f0mr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37770

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "A. Vulgarweed" <fluxed at e...> wrote:
> Assuming Snape is a vampire simply because he's often described as 
bat-like
> seems to require introducing another layer of gratuitous 
weirdness. Let's
> look at a simpler possibility: He might just be a run-of-the-mill, 
garden
> variety BAT ANIMAGUS. 

But then he'd have to be an unregistered one, else Hermione would've 
come across his name when she was looking up the list of this 
century's registered animagi.  There are already way too many 
unregistered animagi running around, so I'm thinking we don't need 
another one.

No, I'm sticking with my new theory -- Snape has a bat familiar.  It 
is not unknown for pet owners to share physical and personality 
characteristics with their pets, and I'll bet it's even more common 
with wizards and familiars.  And c'mon, a bat would be *perfect* for 
Severus.  I can just see it: a smallish, graceful bat, with a furry 
little face and ears that are huge even by bat standards.  Her name 
is Millarca (five points to your house if you get the reference).  
She spends her days hanging from a ceiling beam in Snape's dungeon.  
In the evening, when he relaxes in the rocking chair with his copy 
of Most Potente Potions, she hangs from the candelabra over his head 
and nibbles little bat treats from his fingers.  And at night, if 
it's not delivering mail for him, he lets her out to swoop around 
school grounds.

Yep, I think I'm definitely a fan of B.E.L.A. L.U.G.O.S.I.  Bat -- 
Ever Loyal And Loving, Understands Guidance, Obeys, Severus' 
Instructions.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From margdean at erols.com  Sat Apr 13 00:23:38 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:23:38 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who's Your Kitty Daddy? Toasted STUDMUFFIN
References: <a97r22+f0mr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CB77A8A.90016D5E@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37771

marinafrants wrote:

> No, I'm sticking with my new theory -- Snape has a bat familiar.  It
> is not unknown for pet owners to share physical and personality
> characteristics with their pets, and I'll bet it's even more common
> with wizards and familiars.  And c'mon, a bat would be *perfect* for
> Severus.  I can just see it: a smallish, graceful bat, with a furry
> little face and ears that are huge even by bat standards.  Her name
> is Millarca (five points to your house if you get the reference).

J. Sheridan LeFanu, "Carmilla" (woo, hot stuff, Marina!).  I've
never been officially Sorted but you can give the points to
Ravenclaw.


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 13 01:07:23 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (columbiatexan)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:07:23 -0000
Subject: Sirius' name
Message-ID: <a980cb+ikl8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37772

I'm hoping this post doesn't get rejected for being so short, but I 
was running those genealogy searches on various names from 
the Potter series (obviously, names like Dumbledore, Snape 
and Weasley make the search engine go haywire).  And of 
course, I got very simple answers for Granger and Potter.  But 
the definition I got for Black was extraordinarily interesting:

2) derived from Old English blac meaning 'white or pale'; thus 
the surname curiously, may have originally designated either a 
light or a dark person-black or white

A person who may be either black or white?  In other words, you 
think they're "dark" but they turn out to be on the "light" side?  
Hmm, sound like anyone we know... 

If JKR really saw that when  she came up with his name, that is 
just plain ol' genius.  Really, really clever, kinda like NAGINI'S 
BANE (I still can't get over how clever that one was)

Rohit (columbiatexan)





From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 13 04:35:55 2002
From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:35:55 -0000
Subject: Warlock (was: Why do Muggles get a capital letter?
In-Reply-To: <bc.24d23118.29e833e7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a98cjb+30de@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37773

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jefrigo21 at a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/12/02 2:10:40 AM Central Daylight Time, 
> catlady at w... writes:
> 
> 
> > Mugwump
> 
> I know this is a really really short post but what the heck is a 
> Mugwump???????I hope we will find out soon.  This 'mugwump' is 
bothering me 
> now because you all brought it up. 

You will find the details about this stange term on the Lexicon's 
newest page, which discusses titles and honorifics in the Harry 
Potter universe. You'll find that page here:

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/titles.html

Steve Vander Ark
The Harry Potter Lexicon




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Apr 13 04:46:34 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:46:34 -0000
Subject: Mugwump / Snape / Animagi and Werewolves / 
Message-ID: <a98d7a+jodi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37774

Joanna wrote:

> I know this is a really really short post but what the heck is a 
> Mugwump???????I hope we will find out soon. This 'mugwump' is
> bothering me now because you all brought it up.

Maybe someday we'll find out what JKR meant by "Mugwump". Here in 
the Muggle world, that word is derived from an Algonquin word meaning 
'big chief' and at one time it could be used as slangy way to refer 
to a bigshot or boss-man, like "lord high muckety-muck" or " grand 
panjandrum".

In USA in the 1800s there was a political secret society that named 
itself the Indian Lodge of Chief Mugwump, which advocated a 
compromise on some hot issue of the day and therefore were regarded 
as traitors by party loyalists of both sides. A cartoonist therefore 
drew a clumsy quadruped labelled Mugwump, stuck on a fence, with the 
caption: his mug is on one side of the fence and his wump is on the 
other. Therefore, for a while 'mugwump' meant much the same as 'swing 
vote': a waffler, a waverer, with no consistent principles.

Tabouli wrote:

> What's more surprising is that he appeared to devote a lot of his 
> life to snooping about trying to smear the Marauders (James, Remus,
> Sirius, Peter), to the extent that Sirius is so irritated that he 
> snaps and tells him to check out the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack. 
> Why?? (snip)
> ...I'd say there's a good chance that the thing James had which 
> Snape envied, and for which Snape plunged himself into a shame so 
> intense he spent the rest of his schooldays trying to avenge it, 
> was Lily.

I find it quite difficult to believe that Severus fell that much in 
love with Lily when they were 11 or even 12 years old. I even doubt 
that James and Lily even were an item yet when they were 11 or 12 
years old. Yes, I remember clearly that I fell in love a *lot* when I 
was 11 and 12. Usually with pop musicians or TV actors or boys two or 
three years above me. It hasn't left any permanent effects except the 
slightest touch of nostalgia.

I think Severus's ground for envy and resentment of James and Sirius 
(and I often suspect that it was Sirius who was the main enemy, and 
James's main fault was being Sirius's friend) was that he was 
accustomed to getting top marks in all his subjects at primary 
school, and now these, these, these *jocks* were getting better marks 
than him without ever showing any sign of hard work. Severus might 
have gotten best marks in one subject, Potions, but I figure the 
class standings were something like 1) James, 2) Sirius, 3) Lily, 4) 
Severus, 5) Remus (who would have done better if he hadn't missed a 
day or two or three of classes every month). I put Lily as #3 rather 
than #1 because Remus said James and Sirius were the two cleverest 
students in their year, not James, Sirius, and Lily, but she might 
have been #1 and even Remus didn't notice because she played dumb 
like a nice girl is supposed to. Either young Lily playing dumb or 
young Severus not feeling himself to be in competition with a *girl* 
would explain why he didn't resent her like the boys.

Anyway, I'm inclined to think that the sexual competition angle was 
homoerotic. In denial, of course. But if young Severus felt attracted 
to one or more of our boys, he could have perceived it as a suspicion 
whether they were getting their good marks by peddling their asses to 
(a) teachers(s), and he could have been spying on them looking for 
evidence of *that*. There's a little problem here: If *Remus* had the 
top marks, then it would make sense for Severus to spy on Remus's 
absences in the suspicion that they were connected to trysts, but the 
only way it would make sense to suspect that *Remus*'s trysts were 
connected to James's and Sirius's good marks would be if he were so 
attracted to Remus that his jealousy was doing the thinking... 

I wonder how Severus felt about Peter, who was supposed to be the 
inseparable friend of his enemies, altho' not a threat in the marks 
department.

Someone suggested that Karkaroff had been a teacher at Hogwarts, 
Master of Slytherin House, recruiting promising young Slytherins into 
Death Eating, and especially trying to recruit Severus with ... hot 
wine. Which Severus resisted until the aftermath of the Prank: 
Dumbledore revealed his injustice and favoritism for Gryffindors by 
not only not punishing the attempted murderers but covering up their 
offense by forbidding him to speak of it. Now convinced that 
Karkaroff had been right that talk of good and evil is just 
hypocrisy, in reality there is only power, those who wield it and 
those too cowardly to grasp it, he accepted both of Karkaroff's 
invitations. 

(In case anyone doesn't remember that thread, it began with the 
suspicion that Karkaroff in GoF was trying to seduce Viktor into his 
bed, not just Viktor's endorsement deals into his bank vault, and the 
observation that Severus looks like Viktor.)

I don't like any part of that theory: I don't like creditting sleazy 
Karkaroff with so honest a feeling as sexual lust; I don't like 
thinking that sleazy Karkaroff was ever able to con his way into a job 
at Hogwarts, let alone House Master; I don't like thinking that 
Dumbledore wouldn't have Dealt With a House Master who was recruiting 
students as Death Eaters; I don't like thinking that Severus would 
have the bad taste to get close to Karkaroff in *any* way... but it 
keeps seeming more and more plausible, except that I can't imagine 
that he *simultaneously* chose Death Eating and cocksucking (sorry! I 
couldn't resist the play on words). I imagine that it makes a big 
difference whether they were lovers first and he followed his lover 
to the Dark Side, or whether they were Death Eaters together first...

Even without any particular backstory, there are Severus and Igor 
acting civil to each other in GoF, when Severus probably knows 
that Igor named him as a Death Eater, and Igor may know that it was 
Severus who set him up....  

> Tabouli of the finally fixed email account.

Hallelu-ilat!!!

> I'm still fascinated by the unanswered question of animagus 
> reproduction. All you werewolf experts out there, can werewolves 
> reproduce the normal way?

I believe that one of the MANY ways in which being a werewolf is 
inferior to being an Animagus is that a female werewolf cannot carry 
a pregnancy to term: the monthly transformation is too hard on the 
fetus. I thought that a male werewolf's child by a human woman would 
be a werewolf, but FB says that the 'only' way to become a werewolf 
is by being bitten. Hey, for all I know, male werewolves are sterile. 

By the way, I agree with whoever said that werewolves turn into some 
special magical kind of wolf whose instincts are different than a 
true wolf's. The most obvious example is that werewolves have an 
overpowering compulsion, obsession, addiction to attack humans -- I 
figure they lose their minds to instinctive rage, hunger, and need 
when they smell the human scent. I figure, other than smelling 
humans, werewolves keep a good chunk of their human minds: Remus kept 
more of himself when with his Animagi friends because they had their 
human minds and they talked to him and stuff, thus requiring answers, 
thus requiring thought... 

And the reason I mention this now is, I doubt if werewolves are 
instinctively sexually attracted to natural wolves, i.e female 
werewolves don't go into heat and male werewolves are not affected by 
smelling a bitch in heat. On the other tentacle, if female werewolves 
don't go into heat, female Animagi are even less likely to, which 
disqualifies the below question:

> What would happen if McGonagall in cat form fell pregnant to 
> Crookshanks? 

I think that one of the many ways in which being an Animagus is 
better than being a werewolf is that the female Animagus's fetus 
safely transforms along with her. I think, regardless of whether it 
was conceived in animal or human form, the form that it is in when 
born is its reasonably permanent 'real' form. Therefore, before I 
learned that Crookshanks is half-Kneazle, I suggested that his 
obviously excessive intelligence might be due to being McGonagall's 
cat son. Having only one or two young instead of a whole litter is 
part of the magic. The pregnant cat Animagus might want to stay in 
cat form full-time, so that pregnancy would last only 42 days, but 
she would want to be sure to transform back into human form earlier 
than the baby was due, in case she was unable to transform back after 
going into labor...

A. Vulgarweed wrote:

> there is, after all, no evidence in canon that non-Animagi can turn
> themselves into animals.

One scrap of *partial* evidence: Krum Transfigured himself into a 
shark, but badly.




From alina at distantplace.net  Sat Apr 13 01:30:09 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:30:09 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius' name
References: <a980cb+ikl8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002001c1e28a$c0f60f40$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37775

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: columbiatexan 

  If JKR really saw that when  she came up with his name, that is 
  just plain ol' genius.  Really, really clever, kinda like NAGINI'S 
  BANE (I still can't get over how clever that one was)

  Rohit (columbiatexan)

At the risk of sounding stupid.. What's Nagini's Bane? 

Alina. 


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.344 / Virus Database: 191 - Release Date: 02/04/2002


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 13 03:26:44 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (columbiatexan)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:26:44 -0000
Subject: Neville&Cruciatus / [SHIP-joke] Ginny's eyes
Message-ID: <a988hk+mnd8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37776

Maybe someone else has noticed this already, but *I*
certainly hadn't noticed it until tonight (anything to avoid
studying for orgo test in a few hours, right?)... and look at THIS, 
a  few pages into Ch. 21
 
"It was someone being tortured," said Neville, who
had gone  very white and spilled sausage rolls all over the
floor.  "You're  going to have to fight the Cruciatus Curse!"

I love how Rowling put all these hints that you
don't even pick up on; makes it fun to read these books again and
again.  And  again and again and again... but in all seriousness,
I wonder  how he knew it sounded like someone being tortured? 
I mean, they couldn't have "heard" what the spiders sounded
like... I  mean, to be fair, i suppose we all know what pain
sounds like,  but it *is* interesting that the minute he heard the
sound, he  associated it with the Cruciatus curse (and Seamus
associated  it with a banshee--does my memory mistake me or was
that what his Boggart turned into in Book 3?).  Maybe
memory recall?  
Or maybe it's just that he associates any hellish
sound with that b/c he knows his parents were tortured... *shrug*
 
 (*sarcasm alert*) On the inconstancy of Ginny's
eyes, well OF  COURSE they're brown.  That way, when Ginny and
Harry get married, they have four possibilities in their
children:

 1)red hair from mom, green eyes from dad (looks like
Lily if a girl)
 2)red hair from mom, brown eyes from mom (looks like
Ginny if a girl)
 3)black hair from dad, brown eyes from mom (looks
like James if a boy)
 4)black hair from dad, green eyes from dad (looks
like Harry if a boy)
 
 SEE???  Doesn't it all just make sense now??? See,
it just goes  to show you that Ginny and Harry are fated from time
began,  star-crossed lovers like Romeo and Juliet...
Cleopatra and Marc  Anthony... hmm, I need to pick some better examples,
don't I? :D
 
 Oh come on, y'all, that was funny, no matter what
your pairing  preference may be :D  That would be funny if they
did end up  getting married and had a girl who looked like Lily
and a boy who  looked like James--think of how many people they'd
freak out?  Just think, mini-James for Snape to hate
for a whole new reason.
 Plus, if the whole Snape-Lily theory is true... and
this time, "James" it out of the race for obvious
reasons... eww, I don't even 
 want to think about that.  
 
 Rohit (columbiatexan)





From Kimstr at hotmail.com  Sat Apr 13 03:14:35 2002
From: Kimstr at hotmail.com (archgarchus)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:14:35 -0000
Subject: The eternal Snape/Lily debate
Message-ID: <a987qr+t8gk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37777

Hello!

My name is Archgarchus and I am new to the group. I used to be an
active member of another HP chat group that was abruptly closed.
Anyways, I have read about this group and decided to join.

One of the more widely discussed/debated topics in my old group was 
the Snape/Lily question. Many, many debates. I am curious about "which
way the wind blows" in this group.

I personally am a big champion of the Snape/Lily theory, but I would 
love to hear from and debate with others. So, anyways, it is great to 
be new to the group and I look forward to many discussions.


Cheers,

Archgarchus





From maryblue67 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 13 14:37:01 2002
From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (maryblue67)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 14:37:01 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's wand silvery bird
Message-ID: <a99fqd+199i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37778

Hello everybody! I make a quick search about this in the lexicon, and 
didn't find the answer, so i come to request the help of your 
wonderful minds... sorry if this has been discussed in depth and i 
didn't see it.

In page 486 of GoF, Bloomsbury hardcover edition, (the chapter 
is "The madness of Mr Crouch"), when Dumbledore and Harry reach the 
Forest and see Krum unconscious, i'll copy what it says;

" 'Should i go and get someone' said Harry. Madam Pomfrey?'
  'No,' said Dumbledore swiftly. 'Stay here.'
  He raised his wand into the air and pointed it in the direction of  
Hagrid's cabin. Harry saw something silvery dart out of it and streak 
away through the trees like a ghostly bird. Then Dumbledore bent over 
Krum again, pointed his wand at him, and muttered, 'Enervate'. "

I can't believe i hadn't noticed that ghostly bird before!! I had 
missed it completely the previous three times i had read the book! 
Anyway, do you have any ideas about this bird? It is obviously not a 
patronus, since there are no Dementors around (or are there? well,if 
there were, Harry would have felt it, and also Dumbledore wouldn't 
have pointed towards Hagrid's cabin, but the Forest instead), but it 
has a similar appearance, silvery, ghostly, the shape of an animal... 
it could be simply some messenger spell to call people, that clearly 
identifies Dumbledore - so i guess it's a phoenix.

 Will it have anything to do with book 5? I had the same feeling one 
gets when the patronus is first shown. When Lupin uses it in the 
train, or when Dumbledore conjures one in the Quidditch pitch, since 
our main characters don't know what it is, it's refered to as 
something silvery white, some shape, etc. Only later we get to know 
what it is. Could this be some foreshadowing, something to be 
revealed in the next books? The way JKR refers to it, i have that 
impression, we'll learn about it later.

Well, if this has been discussed, i would appreciate some pointed 
towards what the discussion subject was so i can find it in the 
archives. 

Thanks!!

Maria
  




From Edblanning at aol.com  Sat Apr 13 17:04:23 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:04:23 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: WW name trends (was No more alphabet, please)
Message-ID: <181.6b31771.29e9bf17@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37779

Dicentra:

> The ancients refer to Sirius as a "ruddy" colored star, leading some
> scientists to wonder if Sirius used to look red, which is why Sirius
> was also called "bloody."  Bloody Sirius. Dog Sirius. Freedom Sirius.
> That can't be a coincidence, can it, Jo?

IIRC, that's because Sirius used to have a companion star, a red giant , 
which has now collapsed. As you say, it isn't anymore. If anyone actually 
manages to *see* Sirius these days, throught the light pollution, it's almost 
blue, sparkling multicoloured (like a diamond in the sky, as the nursery 
rhyme has it).

I'm rather simplistic when it comes to these name things. Can't we just 
accept that Sirius Black = black dog, thus giving the alert reader the clue 
as to who the black dog Harry keeps seeing really is?

Eloise








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Edblanning at aol.com  Sat Apr 13 17:20:05 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:20:05 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Mugwump / Snape / Animagi and Werewolves /
Message-ID: <175.69e5313.29e9c2c5@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37780

Sorry, I know I should have compbined this with the last one, but I was going 
to sign off and then I thought I'd just read one or two more messages....and, 
well, you know how it is!

Catlady:
> 
> I don't like any part of that theory: I don't like creditting sleazy 
> Karkaroff with so honest a feeling as sexual lust

Agreed. The whole thing's yucky. But how else do you explain that the way 
Karkaroff looks at Victor when he enters the Yule Ball with Hermione is 
equated with the way Ron looks at Hermione? OK, we learn that Ron's 
ostensible reason is that he feels she's being treacherous by going to the 
Ball with a Durmstrang student, but we know that Krum's his hero and JKR via 
Harry's reaction to Ron's statement about Hermione 'not getting the point' 
tells us that it *was* jealousy that was eating him. I've just realised that 
this opens up another path which I am not even going to look down, let alone 
venture down, so I'll leave it at that.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From oppen at cnsinternet.com  Sat Apr 13 19:16:21 2002
From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 14:16:21 -0500
Subject: The Crouches---father and son
Message-ID: <00a501c1e31f$b2e49260$cec71bce@hppav>

No: HPFGUIDX 37781

As far as Barty Crouch Sr. and Jr. at the trial we see in the Pensieve goes,
it occurs to me that JKR's love of red herrings might go farther even than
my learned colleagues here have suggested.  It is true that even though Jr.
was apparently a loyal Death Eater, he _might_ have been innocent of the
particular charge that sent him to Azkaban---IOW, he might honestly have
_been_ "in the wrong place, at the wrong time" when the Aurors came.  Or, he
could have been guilty (we'll never know now---THANK YOU, Fudge, for
bringing that stupid dementor to Hogwarts!  What are you going to follow
that with, pushing Hermione down a flight of stairs?).

Now, if he was actually guilty, his act was incredibly good.  BUT, it occurs
to me that acting is a talent that often runs in families.  What if even
while Barty Sr. was raving and ranting about "Take them to Azkaban and let
them rot there!" he was figuring out ways to spring his kid?  Either because
he thought the kid was honestly innocent (see above about "wrong place,
wrong time") or could be salvaged somehow?

Face it, learned colleagues, Crouch Sr. was in a dicey position himself at
that trial.  If he had shown any sympathy for his son or anybody else on
trial (Mr and Mrs. Lestrange?) he could have found himself up on charges
himself---I would not want to attract any such thing with the Wizard World
in what amounted to a lynching mood.  Distancing himself from his son the
Death Eater in the most public way he could was, if nothing else, a
necessity for his own and his wife's safety.  We know that people were
hauled off to Azkaban without so much as trials, at his command.  Wouldn't
some of these folks have people they'd left behind who'd _love_ to pay
Crouch Sr. out?

So-o-o, Crouch Sr. does his thing at the trial.  Not only does this ensure
his own safety (hey, the guy threw his own son into Azkaban, on---let's face
it, iffy evidence, at least according to Sirius) and not give his enemies a
handle to work with to get _him_ thrown in there himself, but when his
Cunning Plan to spring his son goes into action, even if the escape becomes
known, the Crouch home is the _last_ place they'd look, simply because
everybody _knows_ that Crouch Sr. would be the very first person to yell for
the Aurors if Crouch Jr. showed his face.  Hence, while the hunt goes on
everywhere the kid is _not,_ Crouch Jr. is safe in the last place they'd
ever look for him.

Comments?

---Eric, Ravenclaw-that-everybody-thinks-should-have-been-Slytherin




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sat Apr 13 19:41:24 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:41:24 -0000
Subject: PS on Animagi
In-Reply-To: <04ae01c1e22e$bdf1d4c0$ef0ddccb@price>
Message-ID: <a9a1l4+6dg0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37782

Tabouli wrote: 
> I'm still fascinated by the unanswered question of animagus reproduction.  All you werewolf experts out there, can werewolves reproduce the normal way?  What would happen if McGonagall in cat form fell pregnant to Crookshanks?  Could Rita be laying her unspeakable eggs on Hogwarts windowsills?
>

Fist things first, werewolves can reproduce or not depending on the 
reality rules of the specific world. For example, both in Discworld and 
World of Darkness have reproducing werewolves. Discworld (the one I 
know better) definetely states that werewolf pairs breed werewolves 
(although with or without change possibility) and werewolf-human pairs 
have a 50/50 chance (and even the ones that are fully human have 
particular wolfish traits/edge). Right now, I cannot think of a fantasy 
world were werewolves cannot at least interbreed.

The other two, you should be able give yourself the answer I'm going to 
use, Tabouli. The only fantasy world I've ever read were two different 
races mate when one of them is transformed is Edding's Belgariad, were 
Polgara is actually the daughter of a man (Belgarath) and a transformed 
wolf (Poledra). "The transformation is compleate" Belgarath tells 
Garion, and demonstrates inmediately after. So, to answer directly, 
McGonagall could mate with a cat and become pregnant, but I'd say that 
she would have to remain a cat for three months (or whatever the length 
of a cat's pregnancy is): a transformation to another species would 
probably cause misscarriage. Then again, maybe not, as long as their 
both mammals. Whatever the case, it's to be set down as a reality rule 
by the author, so JKR has the last word on the matter. I'd definetely 
would NOT like the baby to transform with the mother, but it could 
happen.

> It does appear that medium to large mammals of magical background can, in some way, communicate in a common language, judging by Sirius' ability to communicate with Crookshanks.  Most curious.  What say ye?  Is there some domesticable carnivores' patois or sign language?  Can Crookshanks speak in some way?  Hmmm...
> 
> Tabouli.

I'd say that Sirius and crookshanks communicated at a pretty basic 
level, although Crookshanks seems capable of understanding human 
language well enough, and Sirius transformed back into human at times 
(for example, just before going into the school), so he could give him 
instructions as a human.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who would like to ask the name experts of the list for the 
original name(s) for a Buffy (but is too OT to ask directly).





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sat Apr 13 20:00:26 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:00:26 -0000
Subject: Aurors & the war v terror was Re: Crouch Sr/Jr + WW + DE's mark
In-Reply-To: <a96h46+urqj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9a2oq+iihq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37783

Ali wrote:
> Grey Wolf wrote:
> 
> > Wars involve some sort of big confrontation, like two armies facing 
> > each other, or invasion by numbers. Voldemort's Reign of Terror is 
> > exactly what's implied in it's name: terrorism, trying to take over 
> a country by frightening everyone into submission.
> > 
> snip
> 
> A  possible example of the Aurors vs. DeathEaters similarity is North 
> > Ireland's terrorism problem, and the way the English goverment 
> tried to solution it: by going in with the army. The trouble is that 
> the motives  of one and another are not comparable, but the situation 
> is (more or less) the same.
> .
> I've thought about the comparison between the Aurors and the British 
> Army, and their respective fights against terrorism, But I can't 
> really see a connection. I think you're right, the motives were very 
> different and the situation vastly different.
> 
><snip: very good description of NI problems>
> 
>  Are you arguing that the British Army stooped to a level that was no
>  better than the terrorists they were fighting? It is certainly 
> stated in canon that some on the "Goodside" of JKR's war against 
> terror used methods such as the Unforgiveable Curses, conviction 
> without trial, which seems to me to have toppled them from their 
> moral highground. The British Army made some terrible "mistakes", and 
> the Government did at one time use Internment as a way of gathering 
> suspected, but unconvicted terrorists. Perhaps on this aspect, at 
> least there are some similarities.

You did, indeed, understand me perfectly. I was saying that the 
situation (specific attacks from both sides instead of general violence 
of a war) is alike in the Reign of Terror and the terrorism in NI. The 
trouble with the example, as you have correctly stated, is that the 
origins of the terrorism in either case are so different that it cannot 
be used to explain neither.The point, however, stands: NI demonstrated 
that trying to stop terrorism by using military methods is unlikely to 
help, and I think that it didn't help either during the Reign of 
Terror. I write from a country ravaged by terrorism, and I know that 
policial methods are much more effective than military ones, even 
though it doesn't look like it at the begining. The lesson to learn: 
you cannot fight violence with violence. The comparison holds because 
terrorism, independently of it's high (or low) "moral reasons" is 
always _*BAD*_ and any cause that takes to fighting to defend it is not 
worth fighting for.

Resuming: the *situation* (not the reasons) of the Reign of Terror is 
similar to the situation of NI during the last 50 years: two sides 
which do not face it other directly but were the terrerist attack the 
army in the darkness, by killing singular people and trying to attack 
morale, while the army takes prisoners and (in the Reign of Terror), 
executes them without judgement.

> Ali
> 
> This is certainly not an argument in favour of terrorism - which I 
> deplore - only a recognition that its necessary to understand its 
> root causes, before it can be stamped out.

I feel exactly the same but, being somewhat cynical of the human 
nature, I know that moral standards exist for a few years and, 
afterwards, it's root causes are reduced to "they pay us for not 
killing them; what an easy life; let's keep it that way"

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf (as sometimes happens with my discussions, this has gone the 
road of OT, so I'd prefer any further discussion of terrorism, except 
if HP-oriented, to be mailed privately)





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sat Apr 13 20:41:33 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:41:33 -0000
Subject: Sirius' name
In-Reply-To: <002001c1e28a$c0f60f40$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <a9a55t+t9dl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37784

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Alina" <alina at d...> wrote:
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: columbiatexan 
> 
>   If JKR really saw that when  she came up with his name, that is 
>   just plain ol' genius.  Really, really clever, kinda like NAGINI'S 
>   BANE (I still can't get over how clever that one was)
> 
>   Rohit (columbiatexan)
> 
> At the risk of sounding stupid.. What's Nagini's Bane? 
> 
> Alina. 

It's not "Nagini's Bane", is "NAGINI'S BANE", which basically means 
it's an acronym. Checking the Inish Alley (in the HP4GU Database), you 
can see it means "Neville And Ginny's Increadible Native Intelligence 
Simmers Behind A Naive Exterior" (a theory that says that both Ginny 
and Neville are powerful wizards, even if they don't look like it)

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From bwerschkun at gmx.net  Sat Apr 13 20:40:55 2002
From: bwerschkun at gmx.net (bwerschkun)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:40:55 -0000
Subject: Ron, Fleur and Hermione; Weatherby; LONG -- Renovating TOADKEEPER
Message-ID: <a9a54n+hkbc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37785

WOW (awestruck) - here comes my first post to this list. NEVER thought 
I'd get that far (clearly begging for mercy in case of any possible 
mistake or misbehavior). I am so impressed with the highly intelligent 
discussions going on around here. Most of the topics will just take me 
ages to mull over. But I thought I'd be safe with throwing in some 
odds and ends of canon that came to my mind while reading some of the 
more recent posts. Here goes:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:52:14, David wrote:
'IMO, the first thing to understand is that Ron does *not*, in the 
normal sense of the word, have a crush on Fleur, and never has done. 
(snip) At no time does he, when acting normally, express any desire 
for her as a romantic partner.  He loses control at the first feast, 
and then again, when he asks her to the ball.  After that, his 
approach is to try to avoid her, mainly no doubt from embarrassment 
but presumably also for fear he will commit some new solecism.'

However, there is this scene at the end of chapter 26 after Harry and 
Ron returned from the lake with Fleur's sister:

... she [Fleur] turned to Harry. 'You saved 'er,' she said 
breathlessly. 'Even though she was not your 'ostage.'
'Yeah,' said Harry, who was now heartily wishing he'd left all three 
girls tied to the statue.
Fleur bent down, kissed Harry twice on each cheek (he felt his face 
burn and wouldn't have been surprised if steam was coming out of his 
ears again), then said to Ron, 'And you, too - you 'helped - '
'Yeah,' said Ron, looking extremely hopeful, 'yeah, a bit - '...

Would you count Ron's looking extremely hopeful (in hope, no doubt, of 
receiving a kiss, aswell) as expressing desire for Fleur as a romantic 
partner or just, again, as loosing crontol whenever she's around?


On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:19:57, Barb wrote:
'I agree that he [Crouch Sr.] probably knows perfect well what 
Arthur's and Percy's name is, and he's doing the "Weatherby" thing on 
purpose.  He knows Percy's ambitious and also a bit of a toady.  I 
wouldn't be surprised if he's turning and smirking every time he calls 
Percy "Weatherby."  Remember, he's not a nice man.'

While having no doubt about the latter, as for the former, I do recall 
a scene, where Crouch also refers to Percy as "Weatherby" when he - 
Percy - is not even present (Chapter 17). Following the revelations of 
the Goblet of Fire, the first task has been explained to the champions 
by the judges. Dumbledore asks Crouch if he wouldn't like to stay at 
Hogwarts overnight.

...'No, Dumbledore, I must get back to the Ministry,' said Mr Crouch. 
'It is a very busy, very difficult time at the moment ... I've left 
young Weatherby in charge ... very enthusiastic ... a little 
over-enthusiastic, if truth be told...' ...

To me, that seemed as if Crouch absentmindedly really just couldn't 
bother to remember Percy's name correctly. It also strikes me as an 
odd notion that he would care to spend any thought and energy on 
deliberately insulting Percy by calling him by a wrong name. Surely, 
Percy doesn't seem very important to him at that point, being just 
some enthusiastic youngster new to the Ministry.


On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:08:35, Cindysphinx wrote:
'As Tabouli mentions, toads are the least desirable of the permissible 
Hogwarts pets.  Even Ron, who has a rat with a missing toe, scorns 
toads.  Yet we are to believe that Uncle Algie is so overwhelmed with 
Neville's admission to Hogwarts, so relieved, so overjoyed, that Ungle 
Algie goes out and buys the *worst* pet that exists.  Yes, I said 
Uncle Algie is bent.  But even Uncle Algie ought to know the 
difference between a good pet and a lame pet.'

As for the popularity of the different species of permissible pets, 
may I humbly remind you of the following little piece of canon (PS/SS 
chapter 5):

Hagrid, when shopping with Harry in Diagon Alley: 
... 'Tell yeh what, I'll get yer animal. Not a toad, toads went outta 
fashion years ago, yeh'd be laughed at' ...

Now, Uncle Algie, who is more precisely referred to as "greatuncle" 
Algie by Neville, is likely to be the same generation as Neville's 
gran. Having it experienced as a very common phenomenom, in the real 
world, that one's elderly relatives lag behind fashion several decades 
without realizing they do so, I can very well envisage good old Algie 
believing he gave Neville a real treat by presenting him with that 
toad.

Very sorry for being such an unbearable Know-it-all-better, this post. 
I do hope, I'll once also be able of posting such INSPIRED and 
elaborate essays like some of you!
(and, er, since English is not my native language, I hope I have made 
myself sufficiently understandable...)

Barbara
Flying with the canon, tonight.







From finwitch at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 13 19:12:09 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:12:09 -0000
Subject: Crouch Sr/Wand-theory/Foreshadowings?
In-Reply-To: <a97o4l+dlpe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a99vua+8odc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37786

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" <pollux46 at h...> wrote:
 
> I absolutely agree. It does sorta chill the blood in your veins, 
> doesn't it? I don't think there can be much doubt that Barty Sr was 
> indeed an inexorable, ruthless, ironfisted man. As a matter of fact 
I 
> can relate with the trio's reaction. It * is* shocking that a man 
> could treat his only son so cruelly. It is shocking that the 
> wizarding legal system would allow him the power to do so. The 
whole 
> scene, fortified by Crouch Jr's really very touching performance in 
> the Pensieve trial (which incidentally I have always wondered about.
>Was he simply putting on an extremely convincing show, or was he 
> actually innocent of this particular charge? We know he's an 
> excellent actor of course and he certainly was a most devoted DE, 
> but, well, oh, he's just so * convincing*, hang it all!

As I read it, I was totally convinced Jr. did *not* do it. That he 
was just another innocent sent to Azkaban. That his own father 
doesn't listen? It might have been Sr. had some sort of "prophetic, 
true vision" knowledge that unless he stopped it, Voldemort would be 
back by the help of Jr.

 Maybe he 
> really was "at the wrong place, at the wrong time" as far as 
> torturing the Longbottoms goes. The idea has been suggested before 
> and, well, it * could* happen you know!) does nothing to promote 
> respect for Crouch Sr character or magical administrative 
> organization.

Innocents though guilty -- Hagrid, Sirius - was Jr. the third? Not 
only Jr's behaviour, but precedents of innocent victims of wizarding 
judging system-- well, Jr. seemed to be the third who wasn't guilty 
to *that* charge, but very much guilty to other crimes. (And it's not 
like Hagrid&Sirius are exactly innocent, but their unlawful 
activities... those things don't, I think, warrant time in Azkaban, 
not to the level they *did* spend time there, at least.

> What I was in fact referring to here was the intentional way in 
which 
> the reader is being lead off the scent (even though he doesn't have 
a 
> chance in a million anyway : --) through rather dubious (as at 
least 
> Harry's comments seams to me here) statements and conflicting (eg 
> Percy v. Sirius) descriptions of his character. I don't know if 
> others felt this, but the way I read the book I was definitely 
> bewildered while at the same time feeling very suspicious of the 
very 
> unfavourable way we were encouraged to view Crouch Sr.

He does wrong in sending Jr. to Azkaban, and tries to 'correct' that 
by smuggling him out, keeping the boy under Unforgivable, absolute 
Control Curse, then by firing Winky... Things go more and more wrong. 
Two wrongs don't make a right. He did, finally, try to do right - but 
got killed before he got to Dumbledore to do it!

> During my first reading of GoF I spent most of the time fluctuating 
> between Crouch and Bagman, trying desperately to choose between 
them 
> for the most likely candidate for this book's Bad Guy and failing 
> miserably, while all the time knowing of course that it really 
could 
> only be anyone * but* them, but not for the life of me being able 
to 
> guess who.
 
Well - but not Crouch (who wasn't there enough) - Bagman *did* get 
some doubts, I mean, offered assistance by a judge? But then again, 
first I thought he was testing Harry (and disqualified him if he'd 
have agreed) - - but as to who put Harry's name into the cup -- I had 
no idea until it was all revealed.

> See, I was looking at authorial intent here. It just seems to me 
that 
> the whole book is trying to built the basis for giving the reader a 
> Really Big Shock (in a much more effective way than say in PS, 
where 
> you don't really ever seriously suspected Snape) when they in fact 
do 
> find out the truth.

You know... I expected them to find a smiling Dumbledore. "So you 
*did* manage to pass my little trap-track, Harry?"- as if the whole 
thing had been a prank set by Dumbledore. "Excellent work.. I really 
must say this isn't safe for the stone if three first-years can do 
it... I thank you for it - by not taking of points for your being 
here when you should be back in your dorm, sleeping..."
 
> I don't know. Maybe you didn't read the book like that. Or more 
> probably you find all this self?evident. I never really was any 
good 
> at seeing through mystery stories :--) I guess I was simply 
> attempting to understand the ingenious workings of JKR plot. For me 
> it is one of the main attractions of the books.
 
I love those mysteries, too. What of the blood-stains of the Bloody 
Baron? Why can *he* control Peeves?

Derived from "Can't get as good results with another's wand as one 
gets with one's own" notion, after seeing Ollivander again:
Could a Wizard do some simple spells *without* incantation, but only 
with *his* own wand? After all, Fleur's wand - Orchideus (Flowers for 
the Lady) - Cedric's: "one of mine" - he sends those smoke-rings out 
of it, no incantation (a foreshadowing of Cedric's death?)
Krum's: Ollivander recognises the maker, (don't recall who) - sends 
off birds with incantation (*is* Krum a bird animagus, or did this 
have to do with his Seeker abilities, or a symbol to later freedom 
without Karkaroff?) -- and then lets out a fountain of wine without 
incantation from Harry's wand. (Foreshadowing of Harry being blood-
source for Voldemort's restorance?) I figured it as red wine BTW... 
blood-red.

> 
> Motivation, huh? Yes, that definitely is a very good question. 
After 
> all Crouch Sr's behaviour is rather bizarre to say the least. He 
> convicts his son, disowns him and goes * faaaar* out of his way to 
> leave no doubt he absolutely, definitely, positively despises the 
> boy. . . and then turns a flip?flop right in our face and comes up 
> with a cunning and elaborate plan to rescue Barty, pulls it off and 
> spends the next decade or so harbouring and controlling him. Why?

Wrongs. Secrets. Sceleton in the closet... Granting his *dying* wife 
her last wish... Number of reasons. Maybe, maybe even a prophecy 
saying that his son will help Voldemort to return again? So he had to 
go to extremes to prevent that (short from killing the boy). But then 
his *wife* who was in pain, dying - requests him to do that little 
thing - haunts him with it until he agrees. It's done - he still 
tries to keep his son imprisoned (although, in more comfort than in 
Azkaban)...

--Finwitch





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Apr 14 00:40:15 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 00:40:15 -0000
Subject: Snape/Lily / Welcome / Karkaroff/Krum / name/Buffy 
Message-ID: <a9aj5f+88su@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37787

Archgarchus wrote:

> I personally am a big champion of the Snape/Lily theory,

Welcome, Archgarchus (and all new members). There are enough 
Snape/Lily shippers here that they occupy a large and luxurious ship, 
the SS LOLLIPOPS (Tabouli, Mistress of Acronyms, created that for 
"Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus"), with many 
different sections for different variations. (H'mm, what is 
T.A.B.O.U.L.I. an acronym for?)

Barbara bwerschkun wrote:

> since English is not my native language, I hope I have made 
> myself sufficiently understandable...

Like most of the posters who apologize for English not being their 
native language, you write English better than many native speakers 
do. Btw I agree with you about Great-Uncle Algie's toad and Crouch's 
Weatherby, and think that Ron looking hopefully at Fleur was another 
case of losing control. 

Eloise wrote:

> But how else do you explain that the way Karkaroff looks at Victor 
> when he enters the Yule Ball with Hermione is equated with the way
> Ron looks at Hermione?

In my opinion, I think that Karkaroff's motive for making nice to 
Viktor was 1) to help Viktor win the Championship, which would 
increase Viktor's financial value both as a Drumstrang Old Boy who 
could be boasted of, and as a superstar athlete, and 2) to get Viktor 
to like him so that Viktor would hire him to be hissports agent or 
financial manager, positions which give great scope for embezzlement. 
His objection to seeing Viktor being so attentive to Hermione at the 
Ball (he hadn't been watching Viktor in the Library) was that 
Hermione was a sharp thinker, not an airhead, who would glance over 
Viktor's contracts and financial records (simply helpfulness, not 
snoopiness) if she were married to him or even just 'good friends'.

I think that Ron's romantic jealousy and Karkaroff's wallet hostility 
were both described with narrowed eyes because of co-incidence, or a 
cliche for describing hostility.

> I've just realised that this opens up another path which I am not
> even going to look down

It seems to me that there are a bunch of Ron/Viktor shippers on ffnet.

Grey Wolf

> would like to ask the name experts of the list for the original 
> name(s) for a Buffy (but is too OT to ask directly).

My friend Roz named her childhood puppy Buffy because she was a buff 
(colored) cocker spaniel. Buffy Chandler was named after her maiden 
name: she was Dorothy Buffum Chandler.




From boggles at earthlink.net  Sun Apr 14 01:43:10 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:43:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Animagi (James and Krum)
In-Reply-To: <a912tq+2opv@eGroups.com>
References: <a912tq+2opv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <p05010416b8de893fd55d@[66.32.48.94]>

No: HPFGUIDX 37788

Aagh!  Sorry - coming in late again . . .

At 10:07 AM +0000 4/10/02, jaymzhuk wrote:
>Am I the only one that thinks James Potter got a bit of a short-straw
>by transofmring into a stag?
>
>Apart from the mauraders keeping a werewolf in check, all the other
>instances of animagi we've seen have been for moving around unnoticed
>in the muggle (or wizarding) world - a beetle, a cat, a dog, a rat, a
>bumblebee (speculation <g>)... then a great big stag! Hardly go un-
>spotted walking along privet drive, would it?

There's no indication that James wanted that advantage of the form. 
Besides, if he wanted to go unnoticed romping through the woods, it 
works just fine.

>I know there's the whole majestic thing, but apart from fighting
>prowess it's  hardly a useful shape.

It's also good for running, although there are other Animagus shapes 
that beat it (hmmm . . . horse Animagi, anyone?).  It strikes me as a 
reasonably multipurpose shape - good at running, combat, and romping 
in the forbidden Forest - for what James's intentions were.


At 11:40 AM +0000 4/10/02, marinafrants wrote:
>This brings up something I've been wondering recently.  During the
>second task in GoF, Krum attempts to transform into a shark, and
>only partially succeeds.  Was this an attempt at an animagus
>transformation?

It had better have been, if Newt Scamander is to be trusted - he 
mentions in FBaWTFT that those Transfigured into beasts, rather than 
being Animagi, take on the minds of the animals they turn into.  Krum 
Transfigured into a shark would have just as soon eaten Hermione as 
rescue her.

Of course, it's possible that Scamander is talking through his pointy 
hat.  We don't know how much experience he has with Animagi, if any.

>If it was, how did Krum know he was going to become
>a shark?

Perhaps he'd done it before.  We don't know whether the Bulgarian 
equivalent of the MOM has restrictions on Animagery, or whether Krum 
is registered as an Animagus there.

>And talk about an inconvenient animagus form -- can't
>transform unless you've got a large body of water handy.

There are worse ones.  Consider the jellyfish Animagus.  OTOH, being 
a squid Animagus might be rather cool.  We know phyla other than the 
vertebrates are possible, since Skeeter can turn into an insect . . .

>If it
>wasn't animagic, then what was it?  Are there ways to take on an
>animal shape without becoming an animagus?  If so, then what's so
>special about being an animagus?

One can be Transfigured into an animal shape by someone else, or at 
least Scamander says one can.  The entire MacBoon clan was supposed 
to have been so Transfigured, giving rise to the Pentapeds.  (Which 
probably aren't vertebrates either.)  As I tend to think of that as 
similar to the old AD&D Polymorph Other spell, and the Animagus 
transformation as similar to Polymorph Self, I suspect that one can't 
Transfigure one's self into an animal shape beond the Animagus 
Transformation, but perhaps there is a sort of partial-transformation 
spell, and that is what Krum used?  Could Hermione, under the right 
circumstances, Transfigure her hands into tiger's claws for 
self-defense?  If so, we haven't seen it anywhere else yet, and it 
makes Bagman's comment about an "incomplete" tranformation a little 
odd, but we probably can't rule it out.

-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!



From fordpr1020 at aol.com  Sun Apr 14 06:02:15 2002
From: fordpr1020 at aol.com (thefortressiserlohn)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 06:02:15 -0000
Subject: Snape/Lily / Welcome / Karkaroff/Krum / name/Buffy
In-Reply-To: <a9aj5f+88su@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9b617+dkor@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37789

> the SS LOLLIPOPS (Tabouli, Mistress of Acronyms, created that for 
> "Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus"), with many 
> different sections for different variations. (H'mm, what is 
> T.A.B.O.U.L.I. an acronym for?)

TABOULI's Acronyms Bring Us Loving Insight.  It's recursive, see?  
It's also not perfect, but it's 2AM and the best I could do on the 
spot.

Sorry for the one-liner =(

--jc




From fordpr1020 at aol.com  Sun Apr 14 06:02:25 2002
From: fordpr1020 at aol.com (thefortressiserlohn)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 06:02:25 -0000
Subject: Snape/Lily / Welcome / Karkaroff/Krum / name/Buffy
In-Reply-To: <a9aj5f+88su@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9b61h+a3ul@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37790

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> 
wrote:
> Archgarchus wrote:
> 
> > I personally am a big champion of the Snape/Lily theory,
> 
> Welcome, Archgarchus (and all new members). There are enough 
> Snape/Lily shippers here that they occupy a large and luxurious 
ship, 
> the SS LOLLIPOPS (Tabouli, Mistress of Acronyms, created that for 
> "Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus"), with many 
> different sections for different variations. (H'mm, what is 
> T.A.B.O.U.L.I. an acronym for?)
> 
> Barbara bwerschkun wrote:
> 
> > since English is not my native language, I hope I have made 
> > myself sufficiently understandable...
> 
> Like most of the posters who apologize for English not being their 
> native language, you write English better than many native speakers 
> do. Btw I agree with you about Great-Uncle Algie's toad and 
Crouch's 
> Weatherby, and think that Ron looking hopefully at Fleur was 
another 
> case of losing control. 
> 
> Eloise wrote:
> 
> > But how else do you explain that the way Karkaroff looks at 
Victor 
> > when he enters the Yule Ball with Hermione is equated with the way
> > Ron looks at Hermione?
> 
> In my opinion, I think that Karkaroff's motive for making nice to 
> Viktor was 1) to help Viktor win the Championship, which would 
> increase Viktor's financial value both as a Drumstrang Old Boy who 
> could be boasted of, and as a superstar athlete, and 2) to get 
Viktor 
> to like him so that Viktor would hire him to be hissports agent or 
> financial manager, positions which give great scope for 
embezzlement. 
> His objection to seeing Viktor being so attentive to Hermione at 
the 
> Ball (he hadn't been watching Viktor in the Library) was that 
> Hermione was a sharp thinker, not an airhead, who would glance over 
> Viktor's contracts and financial records (simply helpfulness, not 
> snoopiness) if she were married to him or even just 'good friends'.
> 
> I think that Ron's romantic jealousy and Karkaroff's wallet 
hostility 
> were both described with narrowed eyes because of co-incidence, or 
a 
> cliche for describing hostility.
> 
> > I've just realised that this opens up another path which I am not
> > even going to look down
> 
> It seems to me that there are a bunch of Ron/Viktor shippers on 
ffnet.
> 
> Grey Wolf
> 
> > would like to ask the name experts of the list for the original 
> > name(s) for a Buffy (but is too OT to ask directly).
> 
> My friend Roz named her childhood puppy Buffy because she was a 
buff 
> (colored) cocker spaniel. Buffy Chandler was named after her maiden 
> name: she was Dorothy Buffum Chandler.




From allyse1138 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 14 08:39:39 2002
From: allyse1138 at yahoo.com (allyse1138)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:39:39 -0000
Subject: New defense for Ron?/Mirror of Erised
Message-ID: <a9bf8b+3isk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37791

Long time in lurkdom, but I hope my resurgence doesn't alarm 
anyone. :)

I rarely have time to sit down and actually read nowadays, but the 
audio versions are a real pleasure. Sorting laundry goes quite 
quickly with Jim Dale narrating in my ears! Interestingly, an audio 
retelling of a story you know very well sometimes brings little 
details to light that you might not have noticed otherwise. I catch 
extra bits of Tolkien all the time that way (even if Rob Inglis 
speaks rather slowly <g>), and it works for Harry, too.

The other day, I was listing to PS when a sudden thought struck me. 
It probably would *not* have occurred to me if I wasn't a member of 
this group, but there you go. ;) 

Those who choose to believe that Ron might act against Harry, either 
by choice or against his will, often cite his weakness towards the 
Imperious curse as a sign of his vulnerability against manipulation. 
I personally do *not* agree with that assessment, as the text in GoF 
makes it clear (to me) that Harry is the unusual one in his reaction, 
not Ron. Be that as it may, we have a clear, canon proof from way 
back in their first year that Ron does, indeed, have strength of 
will - in some ways, stronger than Harry's.

Harry was so entranced by the Mirror of Erised that after a single 
visit, he was already plagued by a lack of appetite and an obsession 
to see it again. 

   "'...Have some bacon, or something. Why aren't you eating 
anything?'

   "Harry couldn't eat. He had seen his parents and would be seeing 
them again tonight. He had almost forgotten about Flamel..."

Ron, on the other hand, while willing to push and shove equally with 
Harry for a better view while actually standing in front of the 
mirror, had the strength of character to recognize that there is 
something not quite right about the MoE. 

   "...And Ron pulled Harry out of the room. ...

   "'Want to play chess, Harry?' said Ron.

   "'No.'

   "'Why don't we go down to visit Hagrid?'

   "'No, you go.'

   "'I know what you're thinking about, Harry, that mirror. Don't go 
back tonight.'

   "'Why not?'

   "'I don't know, I've just got a bad feeling about it...I'm 
serious, Harry! Don't go.'

   "But Harry had only one thought in his head, which was to get back 
in front of the mirror, and Ron wasn't going to stop him."

These are direct quotes from "The Mirror of Erised," with the caveat 
that I typed them while listening to the audio version, rather than 
citing the actual text. Sorry, but the books aren't available at the 
moment. :)

Now, I suppose we can argue easily enough that Harry has more to 
desire, just as the dementors have a greater well of torment to draw 
upon with Harry. But if the MoE realy shows the deepest desires of a 
human being, the subject matter should have little to do with the 
intensity of that desire. So here we have Ron, facing the triumph 
against what many assert to be his greatest weakness - his longing 
for the spotlight (and I wonder how many noticed that Ron doesn't 
seem to see himself in designer wizarding robes?) - yet having the 
strength of character to walk away.

The threads speculating on a potential betrayal by Ron are many and 
varied, but I did try to do a search before making this post, and I 
could not find any mention of this aspect. Has anyone discussed this 
before? If so, I'd love to have a pointer towards the discussion.

As a final observation on the MoE, it also dawned on me that 
Dumbledore's smug explanation of why Quirrel couldn't get the Stone 
makes little sense. Dumbledore claimed that only a person who wanted 
to find the Stone, but not actually use it for themselves, could get 
it out of the Mirror. But isn't that exactly what Quirrel was trying 
to do? He was attempting to get the Stone, but for Voldemort, *not* 
for himself!

Hmmm. Another Flint? :)

Allyse





From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 13 21:47:06 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (Rohit Puskoor)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 14:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's redemption
In-Reply-To: <1018700437.1358.42497.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020413214707.18114.qmail@web13403.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37792

First things first, before I forget, Alina, NAGINI'S
BANE was a really clever acronym Tabouli came up
with--I don't remember exactly what it stands for (you
can look it up though, it's in one of her more recent
posts), but it basically states that the thoroughly
underestimated Neville and Ginny will prove to be far
more formidable than they've been given credit for
(thus, in my opinion, it's really clever because
they'll prove to be significant in the defeat of
Voldemort, and therefore be Nagini's (Voldemort's pet
snake from GoF) bane!)

Melanie, your post was really interesting, I never
thought before that there might be a reason for
Rowling to put that scene in Borgin & Burkes in Book
2.  I just assumed it was there to give us an idea of
what kind of evil guy Lucius Malfoy was, and that he
was up to no good (and also to give us an indication
of how much antipathy there was between Lucius and
Arthur).  A Draco and Ginny pairing would be funny
because it would give every male Weasley (especially
Ron) a heart attack... heck I think *I* would have a
heart attack if that would happen.  And how ironic
would it be for rich, muggle-hating Draco to fall in
love with the daughter of this poor but kind family
that loves Muggles... this family tha'ts he's been
making fun of since he got to Hogwarts. 

But I don't think it's likely to happen, because I
don't think a redemption of Draco Malfoy is likely to
happen.  I think this redemption and this particular
pairing is going to have to remain squarely in the
readers' imagination; I would have bought it all the
way until the end of Book 4, because until then,
Malfoy's comments have been solely restricted to the
realm of being a snotty, bratty little rich boy.  But
his comments at the end of Book 4 (right before Harry,
Hermione, the twins, and Ron hit him with the barrage
of curses) to me indicates where his future path lies.
 What he said about Hermione, Ron and then WHAT HE
SAID ABOUT CEDRIC was so cold-blooded, so atrocious,
so disgusting, it made me lose any hope I had for his
redemption and any sympathy for him at all.  Unless
Narcissa Malfoy is secretly a good person trapped in a
loveless marriage (and so far, all we know about her
is she's a very snobby rich woman with her nose in the
air looking down at everything), I just don't see
where he's going to get the guidance for redemption. 
Dad, Mom and the Slytherins... well, I suppose there
have to be some decent Slytherins in the bunch, and
Snape's there (though he may not be there next year,
at school I mean).

Draco seems to have just gotten worse and worse
throughout the 4 books.  He has not shown one *iota*
of caring for anything except himself, and after the
incident in Book 4, I just don't see that changing.  I
for one was incredibly happy to see Moody turn Malfoy
into a ferret. 

Was I the only one to suspect Moody from the start? 
I'm not sure why i did, I just thought he was too cool
not to run at the end, but I kept hoping that somehow,
it wasn't his fault or something, b/c I didn't want to
lose this awesome character.  And lo and behold :P

They should just get rid of Slytherin House or
something--why don't they just rename it Dumbledore
House, and make it representative of something
else--people who are very philsophical and wise and
kind hearted.  They can get into fights with
Ravenclaws over which house is the *real* haven for
intellectuals...

rohit (columbiatexan)

=====
"That is one of my more brilliant ideas, and between you and me, that is saying something."

-Professor Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, J.K. Rowling

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sun Apr 14 10:01:51 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:01:51 -0000
Subject: New defense for Ron?/Mirror of Erised
In-Reply-To: <a9bf8b+3isk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9bk2f+u4eg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37793

Allyse wrote:

> As a final observation on the MoE, it also dawned on me that 
> Dumbledore's smug explanation of why Quirrel couldn't get the Stone 
> makes little sense. Dumbledore claimed that only a person who wanted 
> to find the Stone, but not actually use it for themselves, could get 
> it out of the Mirror. But isn't that exactly what Quirrel was trying 
> to do? He was attempting to get the Stone, but for Voldemort, *not* 
> for himself!
> 
> Hmmm. Another Flint? :)
> 
> Allyse

No, I don't think it's a flint: Harry did NOT want to use the stone for 
*anything*, he just wanted to *find* it before Quirrel did. Quirrel, in 
the other hand, wanted to have the stone so he could *use* it to gain 
his master's rewards by giving it to him. The crucial difference is 
there: one just wants to find it (but has no plans on what to do with 
it *if* he finds it), and the other wants to find it to *do* something 
with it 8even if it's only giving it to another person).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sun Apr 14 10:38:27 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:38:27 -0000
Subject: Scholastic news
In-Reply-To: <a972og+4g0i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9bm73+ns1f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37794

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "columbiatexan" <columbiatexan at y...> wrote:
> This care of Yahoo! Finance's Briefing.com In Play page--dontcha just 
> love it when different serious interests of yours (in this case, 
> finance/business and Harry Potter) collide:
> 
> 8:37AM Scholastic Corp cut to Hold by Pru on valuation (SCHL) 56.40: 
> Prudential downgrades to HOLD from Buy as stock price exceeds firm's 
> $56 price target. Whiledowngrade is based on valuation, firm 
> acknowledges some uncertainty exists regarding, at a minimum, the 
> timing of the release of Harry Potter Book V. Firm's interest in 
> SCHL's shares could be renewed if the Harry Potter-induced earnings 
> volatility were reduced, perhaps through a multi-book contract with 
> Ms. Rowling. 
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> Rohit (columbiatexan)

OK, I've read it through some five times and still don't understand 
what it says. Rohit (or anyone), could you please translate whatever 
the news is to simple English? (Is it good news, bad news, what?)

Grey Wolf, sorry for the one-liner, but in need of English->English 
translation.





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sun Apr 14 11:25:16 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 11:25:16 -0000
Subject: Animagi (James and Krum)
In-Reply-To: <p05010416b8de893fd55d@[66.32.48.94]>
Message-ID: <a9bous+uodo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37795

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon <boggles at e...> 
wrote:
> >And talk about an inconvenient animagus form -- can't
> >transform unless you've got a large body of water handy.
> 
> There are worse ones.  Consider the jellyfish Animagus.  

The fate of really spineless people, I presume?  Perhaps Karkaroff 
is one. :-)

> One can be Transfigured into an animal shape by someone else, or 
at 
> least Scamander says one can.  

No need to take Newt's word for it -- we saw Crouch/Moody do it to 
Draco.  The questin is, could Moody have used the same spell to turn 
himself into a ferret?  And if he did, how would he turn back?

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From john at walton.vu  Sun Apr 14 11:46:24 2002
From: john at walton.vu (John Walton)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:46:24 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Scholastic news
In-Reply-To: <a9bm73+ns1f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <B8DF2AA0.DCBC%john@walton.vu>

No: HPFGUIDX 37796

grey_wolf_c wrote:

> OK, I've read it through some five times and still don't understand
> what it says. Rohit (or anyone), could you please translate whatever
> the news is to simple English? (Is it good news, bad news, what?)

It's confirmation that, as we have long suspected and heard from various
sources, Scholastic do not have a 7-book contract with JKR -- or, I suspect,
a firm release date, as they would probably have said if they did in order
to get their stock back up again.

[Mod Note for future reference: Remember that announcements should go on
HPFGU-Announcements and, if appropriate, discussed on OTChatter (in this
case, this is canon-related, so it's in the right place). Contact the Mods
at mods at hpfgu.org.uk if you have questions :) Oh, and if you hear that book
5 is coming out...tell us first and we'll love you forever :D]

--John

____________________________________________

"Wow! They've got the internet on computers now!"
    -- Homer Simpson

John Walton || john at walton.vu
____________________________________________





From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net  Sun Apr 14 16:08:39 2002
From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:08:39 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1803
In-Reply-To: <1018793575.10385.31263.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020414120454.00a7bb20@mail.fantasysales.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37797


>~~~~~But how else do you explain that the way
>Karkaroff looks at Victor when he enters the Yule Ball with Hermione is
>equated with the way Ron looks at Hermione? ~~~~~



I think the reason Karkaroff is giving this look is that he is afraid of 
Krum "defecting" so to speak and he (Karkaroff) will lose his champion 
player if Krum falls for Hermione and decides to either stay at Hogwarts or 
to come back to Hogwarts. I don't think it's a sexual thing at all but a 
look of a coach afraid of losing his star player. As a semi-fan of sports, 
even I have seen this look on coaches faces when they realize that scouts 
are about


---
Kendra Grant-Bingham
~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~
"Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count."






From melodylemming at hotmail.com  Sun Apr 14 18:35:15 2002
From: melodylemming at hotmail.com (Melody B.)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:35:15 -0400
Subject: New defense for Ron?/Mirror of Erised
Message-ID: <F91YhnXzEHgnq4BlTWq0000d868@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37798

Allyse said:
>Ron does, indeed, have strength of
>will - in some ways, stronger than Harry's...
>Harry was so entranced by the Mirror of Erised that after a single
>visit, he was already plagued by a lack of appetite and an obsession
>to see it again.
>So here we have Ron, facing the triumph
>against what many assert to be his greatest weakness - his longing
>for the spotlight (and I wonder how many noticed that Ron doesn't
>seem to see himself in designer wizarding robes?) - yet having the
>strength of character to walk away.

This makes a certain amount of sense, but consider their backrounds. Harry 
has spent most of his life being opressed by his relatives until he is 
suddenly pulled into what for him seems to be a fantasy world. I would think 
it's a little unreal for him.

Ron, on the other hand, is absolutely a realist. He's been brought up in a 
poor family and he understands the realities of the wizarding world.

Both faced with a magical object that shows -- although they don't realize 
it -- their deepest desires, Harry, who has recently been told that magic is 
real, will react to it very differently from Ron, who has been surrounded by 
magical object all his life.

By the way, this is my first post here. I was sort of intimidated by the 
prevalence of HP4GU-ers in the fandom, but I know that's silly.

Melody

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 14 18:01:55 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:01:55 -0000
Subject: Draco's redemption
In-Reply-To: <20020413214707.18114.qmail@web13403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a9cg6j+8smg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37799

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Rohit Puskoor <columbiatexan at y...> wrote:
> First things first, before I forget, Alina, NAGINI'S
> BANE was a really clever acronym Tabouli came up
> with--I don't remember exactly what it stands for (you
> can look it up though, it's in one of her more recent
> posts), but it basically states that the thoroughly
> underestimated Neville and Ginny will prove to be far
> more formidable than they've been given credit for

Neville... dear Neville. The one who's magic gets harmful in stress.
 
> But I don't think it's likely to happen, because I
> don't think a redemption of Draco Malfoy is likely to
> happen.  I think this redemption and this particular
> pairing is going to have to remain squarely in the
> readers' imagination; I would have bought it all the
> way until the end of Book 4, because until then,
> Malfoy's comments have been solely restricted to the
> realm of being a snotty, bratty little rich boy.  But
> his comments at the end of Book 4 (right before Harry,
> Hermione, the twins, and Ron hit him with the barrage
> of curses) to me indicates where his future path lies.
>  What he said about Hermione, Ron and then WHAT HE
> SAID ABOUT CEDRIC was so cold-blooded, so atrocious,
> so disgusting, it made me lose any hope I had for his
> redemption and any sympathy for him at all.

Me too - He *was* a death-threat to Ron, Harry and Hermione, so well, 
those curses were necessary. Are Fred&George going to tell about it 
or not? Will Harry tell Sirius? They *should* tell someone. At least 
if Hermione really lets Rita Skeeter out... *what* will prevent her 
from registrating and *then* writing the story?

>  Unless
> Narcissa Malfoy is secretly a good person trapped in a
> loveless marriage (and so far, all we know about her
> is she's a very snobby rich woman with her nose in the
> air looking down at everything), I just don't see
> where he's going to get the guidance for redemption. 
> Dad, Mom and the Slytherins... well, I suppose there
> have to be some decent Slytherins in the bunch, and
> Snape's there (though he may not be there next year,
> at school I mean).

And I'm not quite sure of Snape's loyalties. True, Voldemort will 
kill him if he gets near enough, but... how do we know that Snape 
isn't just waiting for a change to becoming *another* Voldemort-like 
character?
 
> They should just get rid of Slytherin House or
> something--why don't they just rename it Dumbledore
> House, and make it representative of something
> else--people who are very philsophical and wise and
> kind hearted.  They can get into fights with
> Ravenclaws over which house is the *real* haven for
> intellectuals...

No-- since that's the one where the 'baddies' usually dwell, by 
having it there... Keep an eye of them, knowing them... besides, 
Peter Pettigrew was a Gryffindor - and I think there *are* people 
from other houses, too, that joined Voldemort.

-- Finwitch





From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Sun Apr 14 19:37:55 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 19:37:55 -0000
Subject: Someone Who Crouch Overcame (filk)
Message-ID: <a9clqj+ua1s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37800

Someone Who Crouch Overcame (from GoF, Chap. 30)


Dedicated to Liz Sager

(To the tune of Gershwin's Someone to Watch Over Me)

THE SCENE: The trial of Karkaroff. Seated are Dumbledore and MOODY

MOODY (to Dumbledore)
There's a saying old, "leopards can't change spots"
And I've often said, let him in jail rot
Crouch is going to cut a deal with this Schlemihl I caught 

Sought him everywhere for six months or more
He's a big ally of Lord Voldemort
Sometimes makes me wonder why I've stayed Auror

I'd like to ask the officials back at Azkaban
Tell me why they trust filth as stool pigeons

(Enter KARKAROFF, flanked by Dementors)

KARKAROFF
I am some one who no longer will maim
I must name names since I became
Someone who Crouch overcame.

I'm a little man from darkness divorced
Filled with remorse, I'll be your source
As one who Crouch overcame.

Although you may not know that Travers
And Rookwood are traitors
I'll prove that they're total DE's

Can't I get you please to prosecute Snape
Let me escape prison landscapes
I'm one who'll play Crouch's game.
Let me evade Crouch's blame...

	- CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 




From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 00:23:54 2002
From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:23:54 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's wand silvery bird
In-Reply-To: <a99fqd+199i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9d6iq+7cvs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37801

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "maryblue67" <maryblue67 at y...> wrote:
> Hello everybody! I make a quick search about this in the lexicon, 
and 
> didn't find the answer, so i come to request the help of your 
> wonderful minds... sorry if this has been discussed in depth and i 
> didn't see it.

It's in the Lexicon. It's listed in the Spell Encyclopedia as the 
Messenger Spell. You'll notice that the name of the spell is colored 
a darker red, indicating that the spell's name wasn't given in the 
the books so I created a name for it. You'll find it here:

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/spells_m.html#Messenger

Steve Vander Ark
The Harry Potter Lexicon




From philnel at ksu.edu  Mon Apr 15 01:23:04 2002
From: philnel at ksu.edu (Philip Nel)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 20:23:04 -0500
Subject: Dedications
References: <1018793575.10385.31263.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CBA2B78.8092033C@ksu.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 37802

Greetings, Potterians:

Here's a question for the true experts on the list.  Who are Jill Prewett, Aine Kiely, and Mr. Ridley?  I'm looking for facts here, preferably accompanied by a citation.  I should also add that if Steve Vander Ark's excellent HP Lexicon (or another Potter reference page) already has this info., please feel free to
direct me to that page.  I'll go quietly.

To explain the above question (in case it needs explaining)....
Book one is dedicated to Jessica, Ann, and Di (Rowling's daughter, mother, and sister)
Book two is dedicated to Sean P. F. Harris (owned turquoise Ford Anglia, in which he and Rowling drove around as teens; also lent her money for deposit on a flat, when Rowling returned from Portugal, after end of her marriage to Jorge Arantes)
Book three is dedicated to "Jill Prewett and Aine Kiely, the Godmothers of Swing" (who are they?)
Book four is dedicated to Peter Rowling (her father), Susan Sladden (babysat Jessica while Rowling was writing the early novels), and "in memory of Mr. Ridley" (don't know who he is)

Thanks,

Phil
--
Philip Nel
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Denison Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-0701
U.S.A.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.ksu.edu/english/nelp/
philnel at ksu.edu





From TypoDemonn at aol.com  Mon Apr 15 01:42:18 2002
From: TypoDemonn at aol.com (dejavu112)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:42:18 -0000
Subject: Chatroom?
Message-ID: <a9db5q+vhcr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37803

You people make me sick, I swear. In your personal quest to stop 
the 'trolls' you have become them. I remember when this group came 
over to Yahoo!Groups. I remember when you were nice. I remember when 
you wern't full of yourselves. Please do everyone a favour and get 
off your high horses. 

Evidently absolute power does corrupt absolutly. Please don't bother 
trying to unsub me, I am going to do it myself. I have said my peace, 
don't track me down and send me nasty threats. Don't hack into my 
account (bet that sounds familiar) and cause damage. Just leave me 
alone.

Getting out of dodge,
Nikki, friend of Sinead, who really doesn't care about all this crap 
anymore and just wants out of it. 

Thank you and good night.




From Zarleycat at aol.com  Mon Apr 15 01:42:48 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:42:48 -0000
Subject: Beastly little Snape note
In-Reply-To: <a97cni+dgna@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9db6o+2o7j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37804

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> Have you noticed that Snape is the only one of the major 
> wizarding characters who has neither an animal shape nor an 
> animal companion? Think about it.
 
The Dursley family also is animal-less, if you discount the spiders 
in Harry's closet, which hardly fit the bill of animal companion.  
Maybe you're on to something - the people who cause Harry the most 
day-in-day-out aggravation are apparently not animal people.  And JKR 
also uses words to hint or describe certain animal-like appearances 
of these same people - Hagrid gives Dudley a pig's tail, Snape swoops 
around like a giant bat, Petunia is described as horse-faced...

Marianne, who doesn't entirely trust people who don't like animals




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Apr 15 02:03:00 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 02:03:00 -0000
Subject: Beastly little Snape note
In-Reply-To: <a9db6o+2o7j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9dcck+lfed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37805

-Marianne wrote:

> The Dursley family also is animal-less, if you discount the 
spiders  in Harry's closet, which hardly fit the bill of animal 
companion.  
> Maybe you're on to something - the people who cause Harry 
the most  day-in-day-out aggravation are apparently not animal 
people.  <<

Hmm....Aunt Marge is definitely an animal person (twelve dogs!) 
and Draco has his eagle owl. Snape does have all  those slimy 
things in jars, but they're all dead, presumably, and it's not clear 
that they're animals, is it? 

Pippin
who doesn't really want to think about what Snape has in those 
jars




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Mon Apr 15 02:37:51 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:37:51 +1000
Subject: Transfiguration, pets, LOLLIPOPS, animal communication, acronyms
Message-ID: <010701c1e426$8c41d7a0$db52dccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37806

Sandi:
> This makes me wonder if Lily had an animagus form.  Hermione is so bright and 
research-oriented, it would not surprise me if in the next volume or two, 
she cracks the transfiguration spell....<

I'm pretty sure that if the Marauders managed the Transfiguration spell in fifth year, Hermione should have no trouble.  However, I'd also say she'd need a pretty urgent reason for doing so, given the strong position she's taken against illegal Animagi such as Rita Skeeter.  Hmm... what sort of animal do you think Hermione would become?

Marina:
> No, I'm sticking with my new theory -- Snape has a bat familiar.  It 
is not unknown for pet owners to share physical and personality 
characteristics with their pets, and I'll bet it's even more common 
with wizards and familiars.  And c'mon, a bat would be *perfect* for 
Severus.<

Now this familiar concept is interesting.  Reminiscent of one of the tenets of my TOADKEEPER theory... from what we've seen so far, it seems reasonably common for the pet to choose the wizard, rather than the other way around.  This would seem to fit in with the familiar theory.  Hermione intended to buy an owl, but a timely performance and a dash of pathos from the pet shop owner about him being unwanted swayed her directly onto Crookshanks.  Pigwidgeon mysteriously turned up and was adopted by Ron.  "Scabbers" clearly managed to inviegle himself into the Weasley family somehow, and quite possibly had a maimed claw in his transferral from Percy to Ron, the brother who was going to be in Harry Potter's year.

(musing for the deeply paranoid conspiracy theorists... could Scabbers somehow have played a dark paw in encouraging the Harry/Ron friendship, for spying purposes?  Was he only *pretending* to be asleep in Ron's pocket in the train, whereas really he was quietly casting an Amicus spell??  Was biting Goyle a carefully calculated move to assist in the Harry/Ron bonding process???)

The wise and sapient Archgarchus:
> One of the more widely discussed/debated topics in my old group was 
the Snape/Lily question. Many, many debates. I am curious about "which
way the wind blows" in this group.
>
>I personally am a big champion of the Snape/Lily theory, but I would 
love to hear from and debate with others.<

Captain Tabouli strides proudly down the gangway onto the dock, flanked by trumpet wielding minstrels playing a triumphant fanfare.  Archgarchus! she cries expansively, holding out a small round object and a slip of paper in a proud, captainly hand.  Somewhat overwhelmed by this reception, Archgarchus timidly picks them up and studies them carefully.  The slip of paper appears to be a ticket for a deluxe cabin on the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, on which is scribbled a little note saying "refer to November 6th 2001 post entitled "Severus Snape: The grudge and the very long LOLLIPOPS biography".

Archgarchus blinks, and then turns baffled eyes to the badge, on which there is a picture of Snape clutching the Mirror of Erised, with tears in his eyes.  In the mirror is an image of Lily Potter, nee Evans, gazing back at Snape, her green eyes brimming with adoration.  Around the edge of the badge is printed the legend "Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus."

Catlady:
>I find it quite difficult to believe that Severus fell that much in 
love with Lily when they were 11 or even 12 years old. I even doubt 
that James and Lily even were an item yet when they were 11 or 12 
years old. Yes, I remember clearly that I fell in love a *lot* when I 
was 11 and 12. Usually with pop musicians or TV actors or boys two or 
three years above me. It hasn't left any permanent effects except the 
slightest touch of nostalgia.
>
>I think Severus's ground for envy and resentment of James and Sirius 
(and I often suspect that it was Sirius who was the main enemy, and 
James's main fault was being Sirius's friend) was that he was 
accustomed to getting top marks in all his subjects at primary 
school, and now these, these, these *jocks* were getting better marks 
than him without ever showing any sign of hard work.<

Having rewarded Archgarchus' wisdom and insight with a suitably prestigious cabin on the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, the Captain turns a baleful eye onto the Catlady, who appears to have the impression that Snape would have had to fall in love with Lily at 11.  She shakes her head firmly, and sits the Catlady down for a stern word.

In an interview with JKR, I'm pretty sure she said that there are no wizard primary schools, and that purebloods are home-schooled.  Of course, we don't know whether Severus was a pureblood, but I'd say the chances are if he turned up at 11 knowing more curses than half the seventh years, he has to have grown up knowing he was a wizard and therefore must be at least half blood.  If he was homeschooled, I seriously doubt that he'd turn up at Hogwarts expecting to get top marks: if this was his first experience of school, presumably he wouldn't know what to expect.  If he did go to some form of primary school, it sounds to me like his first priority was not to excel at his schoolwork and beat his classmates, but to get revenge on whoever has mistreated him enough to warrant learning that many curses.

Sure, I agree that James and Sirius' ability must have galled him.  However, I'd say what galled him most was not really their ability, it was the confidence, good looks, popularity and devil-may-care youthful high spirits which they had and bitter, vengeful, greasy 11yo Severus did not.  Don't "losers" usually detest the popular crowd?

Severus is motivated by vengeance, so no doubt he applied himself to the only area in which he thought he might have the upper hand, namely classwork.  Yet they beat him even there!  Worse and worse, in third year or so, James is selected to be Chaser on the Gryffindor Quidditch team, thus obtaining still more kudos and admiration!!  This is too much to be bourne.  Severus festered, he brooded, he revised his curses and concocted dark plots for their downfall.  After all, it seems clear that Snape's preferred style of comeuppance is cursing people, isn't it?

However, mysteriously enough, Sirius makes no mention of Snape cursing them in high school.  Instead, he describes Snape as acting entirely within the rules and snooping around trying to get them expelled.  Perhaps Snape's scared of getting caught and punished, but I somehow suspect Snape would be pretty good at being cunning and underhand and evading punishment.  I think it's more likely there was something else in the equation.  Someone else.  Someone who believed in principles and treating people fairly and kindly.

What happens around third or fourth year in the Potterverse?  Yes, boys hit puberty.  They start noticing the pretty redhead in the combined Potions classes where Gryffindor and Slytherin work together.  And they notice with extreme anguish that she appears to hang around mostly with their long-time rivals, the cocky, swaggering, Quidditch-playing, Snape-defeating James, Remus and Sirius!!  How can this be?  Severus is sure she is smart enough to see through the swagger to the deeper, more substantial lad he is himself.  He just needs to approach her.  Unfortunately, whenever he tries, the Marauders' laughter is not far away.

Sirius describes Snape as "slimy", a comment which (presumably!) must be referring to his behaviour rather than his physical appearance.  Slimy means dishonestly flattering.  Why would Sirius, whom Snape loathed at school, witness him flattering anyone?  Unless, of course, Sirius is referring to Snape's attempts to woo Lily.  My, how they would have laughed.  That greasy loser thinking he had a chance with Lily!  Imagine Snape's humiliation.  And recognise that it's not surprising that around fifth year, when Snape's crush really took hold, his efforts to smear the Marauders and prove to Lily that they are unworthy of her become so feverish that Sirius is no longer amused.  In fact, Severus' determination infuriates him to the point where he impulsively goads him into checking out the tunnel where Remus has become a werewolf, not really thinking through the consequences...

Catlady:
> I doubt if werewolves are instinctively sexually attracted to natural wolves, i.e female 
werewolves don't go into heat and male werewolves are not affected by 
smelling a bitch in heat. On the other tentacle, if female werewolves 
don't go into heat, female Animagi are even less likely to, which 
disqualifies the below question:<

Given that the werewolf cycle is connected to the moon, you have to muse on connections to the estrous cycle.  Once upon a time, before artificial light, didn't women become fertile during the full moon and menstruate during new moon?  Perhaps female werewolves become werewolves during the time they are actually on heat, and if they weren't also psychotically violent, they might indeed be interested in being, er, impregnated...


Grey Wolf (quoting me):
>>> It does appear that medium to large mammals of magical background can, in some way, communicate in a common language, judging by Sirius' ability to communicate with Crookshanks.  Most curious.  What say ye?  Is there some domesticable carnivores' patois or sign language?  Can Crookshanks speak in some way?<<
>
> I'd say that Sirius and crookshanks communicated at a pretty basic 
level, although Crookshanks seems capable of understanding human 
language well enough, and Sirius transformed back into human at times 
(for example, just before going into the school), so he could give him 
instructions as a human<

Dunno.  Surely convincing Crookshanks to trust him and explaining that he needed to get into the Gryffindor Tower and grab Scabbers requires more than a basic level of communication.  And perhaps he did go human, but it doesn't sound like it from the text ("He knew I was no dog").  I have amusing visions of cat and dog working out a common sign language...


Weaver:
> ::sees Tabouli approaching and gulps:: I didn't mean it! It just happened! Apologies to the Masters of T.A.B.O.U.L.I... (Torturing Acronyms By Opening Up Linguistic Intricacies) ::grins wickedly:: Hey, this could get to be a habit (...) I'll just leave this topic now and
hide my head in the sand ... before Tabouli and Grey Wolf catch up with me for unauthorised T.A.B.O.U.L.I...<

Captain Tabouli gently lifts Weaver out of the sand and bestows a warm, reassuring smile upon her, feeling that initiation into the fine art of acronymery should be encouraged.  Perhaps she should have a chat to Grey Wolf about hiring more staff for TAGWATCH...


jc:
> TABOULI's Acronyms Bring Us Loving Insight.  It's recursive, see? 

Captain Tabouli beams, deeply touched by this gesture of support.  Tooly Elf, however, twitches uneasily.  Much as the Captain appreciates personalised acronyms, Tooly Elf knows full well that posts to the HPFGU main list are supposed to be about the HP books, and posts containing only TABOULI acronyms, well, aren't.  Not quite.  In a conspiratorial whisper, Tooly Elf reminds acronym generators that such touches should be garnishes on posts about canon, rather than the sole subject of a post, lest judgment fall from above...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Mon Apr 15 04:08:57 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 04:08:57 -0000
Subject: The Son Must Sweat (filk)
Message-ID: <a9djop+gkq4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37808

The Son Must Sweat (from GoF, Chap. 30)

(To the tune of Night Waltz: The Sun Won't Set from Sondheim's A 
Little Night Music)

Dedicated to Tabouli

Hear a MIDI of this song at:

http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/little_night_music.html

THE SCENE: The trial of Barty Crouch, Jr. with CROUCH SR. as 
prosecutor. As CROUCH JR. is guarded by dementors, CROUCH SR. 
presents the prosecution's case to a CHORUS OF WIZARDS AND WITCHES

CROUCH, SR. 
My son sinks low, 
Conspiring with Longbottom's foes. 

CHORUS OF WIZARDS 
In the dock
Contrite
Hear him plead 
And his mom's in shock 
Despite 
His foul deed. 

CROUCH, SR.
But my son sank low, 
As low as a wizard can go. 

CHORUS OF WITCHES 
Like Iraq 

WIZARDS
Knife fight!  

WITCHES
How appalling! 

WIZARDS
He dared to mock
 

WITCHES
Their plight

WIZARDS
Gross name-calling 
But-- 

WITCHES
Key and lock... 

WIZARDS
Indict! 

WITCHES
End this brawling
. 

FULL CHORUS
Our hands we raise, 
We invoke judicious clich?s , 
On Azkaban now he must gaze 
`Cause turning DE, son
Is rather a treason-
Ous thing. 

(During the instrumental bridge, a dementor waltzes about the court 
with Crouch Jr.)

CROUCH, SR. 
The son must sweat, 
That boy there I have not beget 
No longer shall he be a threat. 
He's earned a life sentence
To repay his immense 
Crime debt. 

(Crouch Jr., screaming violently, is escorted from the court by 
dementors)

   - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 






From jferer at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 06:45:58 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 06:45:58 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's wand silvery bird
In-Reply-To: <a9d6iq+7cvs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9dsv6+dms2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37809

Steve:"It's [the little silver bird Dumbledore sent to get Hagrid] in 
the Lexicon. It's listed in the Spell Encyclopedia as the Messenger 
Spell. You'll notice that the name of the spell is colored  a darker 
red, indicating that the spell's name wasn't given in the the books so 
I created a name for it."

I had occasion to come up with a name for it, and I called the little 
bird an "Alarum," from the Latin for "alarm."  Actually, those of us 
who grew up in the 1950's or '60's could make a case for calling it 
The Lassie Spell, for all the times that famous collie ran and got 
help ("I think she's trying to tell us something!")





From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Apr 15 06:50:04 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 02:50:04 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Beastly little Snape note
Message-ID: <1a6.bad6cc.29ebd21c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37810

Pippin:
> Hmm....Aunt Marge is definitely an animal person (twelve dogs!) 
> and Draco has his eagle owl. Snape does have all  those slimy 
> things in jars, but they're all dead, presumably, and it's not clear 
> that they're animals, is it? 

That eagle owl. Do we assume that this is the eagle owl that swoops over 
Hagrid's hut towards the end of GoF? Is it the eagle owl that in Harry's 
dream/ vision transports the Faithful Servant's news to Voldemort?
Does it imply that the Malfoys are involved in facilitating communication 
between Voldemort and Crouch/Moody? It seems a bit of a coincidence that the 
only eagle owl connections we are given (IIRC) are to the Malfoys and 
Voldemort.
Or is it just that eagle owls are the Dark Side's messengers of choice? I had 
assumed that Draco had one because it was perceived as aristocratic.

Pippin
>Hmm....Aunt Marge is definitely an animal person (twelve dogs!) 
>and Draco has his eagle owl. Snape does have all  those slimy 
>things in jars, but they're all dead, presumably, and it's not clear 
>that they're animals, is it? 

And Voldemort has his snake! I'm not sure that owning an animal per se is a 
recommendation in the Potterverse. The characteristics of the pets/ 
associated animals may be more significant.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 11:10:09 2002
From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 04:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
In-Reply-To: <a9dcck+lfed@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020415111009.83390.qmail@web13502.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37811


--- pippin_999 wrote:
> and Draco has his eagle owl. 

DRACO owns the eagle owl???  I have been trying 
to figure out whose eagle owl was mentioned in GoF.

Page 540 (American)  "An eagle owl flew through 
the coil of smoke from Hagrid's chimne; it soared 
toward the castle, around the Owlery, and out of 
sight."

At first glance, you think it's just a peaceful 
aside - a description of the scenery.  But in his
Dream later in the story, Harry rides an eagle owl 
to Voldemort's lair.

I had assumed that the eagle owl belonged to
Crouch/Moody.  I never dreamed it was Draco's. 

Is this evidence that Draco himself is in contact 
with Voldemort?  Or do you suppose that all Death
Eaters have eagle owls?

LizGiz




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From tabouli at unite.com.au  Mon Apr 15 13:37:25 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:37:25 +1000
Subject: TOADKEEPER: Trevor on Trial
Message-ID: <00d701c1e484$bc08e4c0$7237c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37812

Newly freed from her cabin, Captain Tabouli is growing fond of her new toad.  Since rescuing him from the watery grave to which the cruel Cindy condemned him, she has devoted many happy hours to the development of a new and elaborate theory to house him, in which Neville's nomadic toad Trevor is no ordinary pet, but an evil agent of Voldemort, cleverly masked by the wily, warty disguise which enables him to spy on Harry Potter.  Trevor is a toad of treachery, and Neville is none other than the TOADKEEPER (The Odious Amphibian: Death-eater Knavishly Executing Espionage, Pursuing Evil Revenge).

For the enlightenment of those who have not yet supped at TOADKEEPER's intimidating fount of canon evidence, here are the primary points in favour of this theory:

1. Suspicious Disappearances

The ongoing disappearance of Trevor is introduced very early in the series, apparently as a ploy to illustrate Neville's absent-mindedness.  However, note that he never vanishes entirely, as a true toadbrained walkabout pet might do.  No, he vanishes, for up to hours at a time, and then turns up again.  Is he really just an animal, straying randomly, or is he up to something more sinister, such as passing information on Harry to Voldemort's allies?  If this sounds far-fetched, remember one particular bid for freedom and tremble... Trevor tried to escape in the school on the night the Trio were going to face Voldemort, because Neville was clutching him by the portrait. Indeed, Neville tries to stop them, allegedly because of concern about points for Gryffindor.  Was Trevor trying to stall the Trio in their efforts to keep Voldemort from the Stone?  Was the seemingly innocent Neville really colluding with him in promotion of the forces of Evil??

2.  Pets Choosing Their Wizards

 As I mentioned earlier today, we have a mysterious trend of pets choosing their wizards in HP.  Crookshanks convinced Hermione to change her mind about buying an owl, Pigwidgeon mysteriously turned up just when Sirius needed him and somehow convinced Sirius to offer him to Ron, Scabbers inviegled his way into the Weasley family and very likely convinced the Weasley parents to buy an owl for Percy and pass him down to Ron, the family member *in Harry's year*.  Why not Trevor?  Could he have sulked in his fish tank for weeks until the quaint old Great-Uncle Algie (unaware of how unfashionable toads have become) came beaming in, talking about his son who'd proved good enough to *start school with Harry Potter*, and then hopped about engagingly, fluttering his slimy eyelids and winning the old boy's heart?

3.  Pets Proving Significant

 So far, almost all of the pets of major characters have turned out to be important in some way: Crookshanks, Scabbers, Fawkes, Buckbeak, Norbert, the list goes on and on.  Surely Trevor, who appears so often, deserves his moment in the limelight.  And note that despite the brutal slashing in the Cinematic-Work-That-Must-Not-Be-Named, the toad did have an almost redundant cameo... why, if Trevor isn't important later?

4. The Abrupt End of Trevor's Wandering

 Note that after the incident at the end of PS/SS, Neville appears to carry Trevor around with him, and we never hear of Trevor getting away again.  Has Neville wised up to Trevor's dark ways?  Or, more sinister still, are they hand in warty glove with one another, and Trevor has warned him that the Trio may have them sussed, and the "oh no, Trevor's lost again" trick is no longer to be used??

5.  Snape's Persecution

Snape is undeniably nasty to Neville.  Is it just because Neville is incompetent at Potions, or is it something more malevolent, some dark suspicions Snape harbours about the boy and his toad?  We know Snape was a spy for Dumbledore, and may well have been a spy at the time when Neville's parents were Crucioed.  What does Snape know?  Does he suspect that the Death-Eaters responsible corrupted Neville's toddling mind onto evil avenues?  And does he threaten to poison Trevor in so nasty a manner in PoA because he suspects the toad of treachery and wants to remove the threat?


To this already ominous list of evidence, we have the discreet but discernable signs that Neville may not be all he seems.  Let me remind you, ladies and gentlemen, of how many times Neville has inadvertently... or perhaps advertently... played into the hands of those who want Harry expelled or killed, or been mysteriously locked out of the dormitory late at night with the excuse that he "forgot the password" (very fishy), or had something planted on him by a Death-Eater in disguise (was Barty Jnr really checking out the progress of his corruption spell, or exchanging information with Trevor?).  Is Neville an innocent dupe, a conveniently clumsy and clueless boy on whom to plant the terrible toad, or is he in fact colluding with Trevor and concealing his secret anti-Harry schemes behind a round, gormless face?

Hmmmm.

As Captain Tabouli shuffles through the evidence, her courier arrives, bearing a message from the Cinister Cindy.  Consoling the toad, who fled into the furthest corner of the room at the mention of her toad-torturing name, the Captain opens the envelope.

Cindy:
> As Tabouli acknowledges, something is definitely going on with the Toad.  The 
Toad is showing up way too much to have no purpose at all.  And 
Neville is not a sufficiently important character to warrant a 
useless pet.  No, both Neville and the Toad are going to be 
*critical* at some point in the next three books.  But *how*?<

Captain Tabouli nods grimly.  The revelations of GoF are already revealing that there is far more to Neville than meets the eye.  Surely he has a role, a growing and fundamentally important role to play in future books, and the toad by his side, like the pets of other characters, will surely have a spongy finger in his pie.  Her nods evaporate, however, as she reads Cindy's feeble challenge to point 2: Pets Choosing Their Wizards.


> As Tabouli mentions, toads are the least desirable of the permissible 
Hogwarts pets.  Even Ron, who has a rat with a missing toe, scorns 
toads.  Yet we are to believe that Uncle Algie is so overwhelmed with 
Neville's admission to Hogwarts, so relieved, so overjoyed, that 
Ungle Algie goes out and buys the *worst* pet that exists.  Yes, I 
said Uncle Algie is bent.  But even Uncle Algie ought to know the 
difference between a good pet and a lame pet.<

Shaking her head emphatically, the Captain is already lifting her pen to reiterate her arguments about the well-meaning but hopelessly unhip Great-Uncle Algie (who is clearly eccentric as he views dropping small boys out of windows as an ideal way to stimulate their magical muscles), when she observes that someone has already taken up this gauntlet:

Barbara, a newbie of rare perceptiveness:
> Uncle Algie, who is more precisely referred to as "greatuncle" 
Algie by Neville, is likely to be the same generation as Neville's 
gran. Having it experienced as a very common phenomenom, in the real 
world, that one's elderly relatives lag behind fashion several decades 
without realizing they do so, I can very well envisage good old Algie 
believing he gave Neville a real treat by presenting him with that toad.<

The Captain grins, puts Barbara on her "promising new recruits to watch" list, and draws a satisfying cross through Cindy's objection to her new, renovated TOADKEEPER.  Having dealt with this, she returns to Cindy's original theory, ToadKeeper I.  

According to Cindy, Trevor is the receptacle of the souls of Neville's parents, and Neville's visits to St Mungo's are in fact clinical trials in which doctors attempt to extract the souls from the toad and return them to the Longbottoms.  Neville must therefore guard Trevor at all costs, and his relatives desperately want him to be magical so that he can assist in the extraction process.  As evidence, she casts aspersions on the honesty of Great-Uncle Algie and Neville, and cites the following canon:

>First, JKR has already introduced the idea that something important 
can be concealed in another living thing.  In the Fidelius Charm, the 
location of the Potters is concealed "inside a single living soul."  
>
>Second, JKR has established the idea that souls can be removed from 
wizards. 
>
>Third, JKR has established that people can exist without their souls. 

Captain Tabouli's mouth twists sceptically.  She feels the jump from "something important" to "the Longbottoms' souls" is a large stretch.  Very large.  Moreover, an incurably nomadic and not overly bright toad would seem a risky choice of living soul in which to put something so precious.  And surely, as someone else once said, Neville's formidable grandmother would have shown more distress at the toad's disappearance than the exasperation she exhibited on Platform 9 3/4.  Why not Neville himself, or his grandmother?

As for soul removal, the only method JKR has suggested thus far is via Dementor's Kiss, and she made it clear that the process is irreversible.  As Lupin says in PoA Chapter 12 "There's no chance at all of recovery."  Pretty inequivocal, that.  He also described the soulless as just "existing" with, and I quote, "no sense of self, no memory, no... anything".  If this was the state of the Longbottoms after the Lestranges had finished with them, getting them to testify to the Ministry would have been totally pointless.  The fact that some information, albeit none too reliable, could be extracted from them at the trial suggests to me that they must have had *some* sense of self and memory left.

Just as Captain Tabouli is about to toss ToadKeeper I loftily overboard, a new seed germinates in the corner of her mind, a seed which has the potential to grow into an all-embracing theory, once which encompasses both Trevor as Death-Eating Spy and Trevor as Soul Storage Centre.  A theory which may well appeal to Cindy, as it is mysteriously reminiscent of one of Cindy's own earlier theories about Snape's ancestry...

*** Could Trevor have a dash of Dementor blood? ***

After all, we don't know what Dementors really are.  They appear to be humanoid, at least in height, but they have many characteristics which seem suspiciously amphibian in nature.  As we all know, toad forefeet have fingers, and look rather like human hands.  The differences lie in the toad's amphibious lifestyle.  Although toads are not as water-dependent as frogs, rumour has it they are moist and warty, and, like frogs, begin their lives as tadpoles in water.  Think about it.  How does JKR describe the hands that protrude hideously from the black Dementor cloaks?  "Glistening, greyish, slimy-looking and scabbed, like something dead that had decayed in water"!!  Are Dementors a sort of hybrid human/toad zombie?  Could they perhaps, interbreed with toads to produce creatures which no longer have the power to drain all happy memories from people, but merely drain lightweight, everyday memories... such as the passwords to the Gryffindor Tower???

AHAA!

Perhaps the secret weapon the Lestranges used again the Longbottoms was not merely Crucio, but Trevor the Soul-Sucking Dementoad!  Of course, just as the true toad blood dilutes Trevor's ability to drain happy memories, it also dilutes his ability to suck out souls and digest them, leaving the victim an empty husk.  Nay, he merely *swallows* souls, like those toads who swallow fertilised eggs, and traps them inside his body, leaving the victims insane but not totally incapacitated, because their souls are intact, just elsewhere.  And, as the doctors at St Mungo's know, it may be possible under some conditions to get the dementoad to regurgitate the souls and reunite them with the victims, but as yet they have not found a way.

Moreover, if Trevor is really a Dementoad in league with Voldemort, the left-hand toad to balance his right-hand snake, that would also account for Voldemort's terribly inconvenient memory lapses at crucial moments... he's spent too long in contact with Trevor and has had his memory damaged!  Every time Trevor "goes missing", and reports to Voldemort, little details escape the Dark Lord, like the fact that phoenix tears cure all wounds, or that mother's love protected Harry from Avada Kedavra.

All that pretence of being Neville's nomadic pet is just a D.A.F.T. S.H.A.M.E.L.E.S.S. S.H.O.W. (Dementor Ancestry Facilitates Trevor's Soul Harbouring, Absent Mindedness Evoking, Lamentably Evil Spying Scheme, Seeking Harry's Overthrow Wickedly)...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr 15 14:33:37 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:33:37 -0000
Subject: Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
In-Reply-To: <20020415111009.83390.qmail@web13502.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a9eoc1+h6dt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37813

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard <lizgiz1980 at y...> wrote:
> 
> --- pippin_999 wrote:
> > and Draco has his eagle owl. 
> 
> DRACO owns the eagle owl???  I have been trying 
> to figure out whose eagle owl was mentioned in GoF.
> 
> Page 540 (American)  "An eagle owl flew through 
> the coil of smoke from Hagrid's chimne; it soared 
> toward the castle, around the Owlery, and out of 
> sight."
> 
> At first glance, you think it's just a peaceful 
> aside - a description of the scenery.  But in his
> Dream later in the story, Harry rides an eagle owl 
> to Voldemort's lair.
> 
> I had assumed that the eagle owl belonged to
> Crouch/Moody.  I never dreamed it was Draco's. 
> 
> Is this evidence that Draco himself is in contact 
> with Voldemort?  Or do you suppose that all Death
> Eaters have eagle owls?
> 
> LizGiz

There is no canon to back up the eagle owl theory. We do know that 
Draco gets food from his parents via an eagle owl (Harry mentions it in 
PS at the very beggining, when he's explaining us how the mornings go 
at Hogwarts). The stretch of asuming that it is the same eagle owl that 
Harry "flies" is one I'm not willing to do, but it is possible from a 
theorical point of view. We cannot dismiss either that the DE used 
eagle owls for communication, but again there's no canon for that.

Against the theory is the fact that none of the three DE we know use 
it: V has Nagini, Wormtail has (if any) a rat and Criuch Jr. didn't 
look like having one (I should remind everyone in the list that we do 
not, in fact, know for certain that Draco's father was a DE: there 
could be another Malfoy - and a Crabbe and a Goyle too. No, I too 
believe that they're guilty, but Harry didn't *really* see their 
faces).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 14:29:20 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:29:20 -0000
Subject: Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
In-Reply-To: <20020415111009.83390.qmail@web13502.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a9eo40+1k8k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37814

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard <lizgiz1980 at y...> wrote:
> 
> --- pippin_999 wrote:
> > and Draco has his eagle owl. 
> 
> DRACO owns the eagle owl???  I have been trying 
> to figure out whose eagle owl was mentioned in GoF.
> 
> Page 540 (American)  "An eagle owl flew through 
> the coil of smoke from Hagrid's chimne; it soared 
> toward the castle, around the Owlery, and out of 
> sight."
> 
> At first glance, you think it's just a peaceful 
> aside - a description of the scenery.  But in his
> Dream later in the story, Harry rides an eagle owl 
> to Voldemort's lair.
> 
> I had assumed that the eagle owl belonged to
> Crouch/Moody.  I never dreamed it was Draco's. 
> 
> Is this evidence that Draco himself is in contact 
> with Voldemort?  Or do you suppose that all Death
> Eaters have eagle owls?

It's unclear whether Draco keeps an eagle owl at Hogwarts, as Harry 
keeps Hedwig and Ron keeps Pigwidgeon.  However, we do know that 
Draco Malfoy receives post from home by eagle owl, so either 
a) Draco also owns an eagle owl and this bird may in fact be his; or 
b) Lucius Malfoy has sent post to his son and Draco is using the 
same bird to send a reply message (or the bird may simply be 
returning to the Malfoy home without post--nothing says the bird 
that is seen is carrying anything). 

Perhaps Harry's dream suggests that the Malfoys will prove to be a 
conduit to Voldemort.  I doubt that Draco himself is in contact with 
Voldemort, or that Voldemort cares at all about a fifteen-year-old 
with no sense (as seen at the end of GoF--and early in CoS, even 
Lucius tells him that it's not good to be heard bad-mouthing 
Harry).  Lucius Malfoy is another story.  He needs to get back into 
Voldemort's good graces.  He denied any wrongdoing after the fall of 
Voldemort and he hid behind a mask at the Quidditch World Cup.  HOW 
Lucius will redeem himself in Voldemort's eyes is another story.  I 
think we should watch all eagle owls very, very suspiciously while 
reading the Order of the Phoenix...(which will hopefully be any year 
now--::sigh::)

--Barb

The Triangle Prophecy is coming....
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From maryblue67 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 14:43:11 2002
From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (maryblue67)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:43:11 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's wand silvery bird
In-Reply-To: <a9d6iq+7cvs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9eotv+2rjf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37815

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" <hp_lexicon at y...> wrote:

> 
> It's in the Lexicon. It's listed in the Spell Encyclopedia as the 
> Messenger Spell. You'll notice that the name of the spell is 
colored 
> a darker red, indicating that the spell's name wasn't given in the 
> the books so I created a name for it. You'll find it here:
> 
> http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/spells_m.html#Messenger
> 


thanks Steve! i had looked under Dumbledore and wands, but not under 
spells, sorry :)

Anyway, do you think the bird is a phoenix? Any ideas?

Maria




From dicentra at xmission.com  Mon Apr 15 14:53:32 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:53:32 -0000
Subject: WW name trends (was No more alphabet, please)
In-Reply-To: <181.6b31771.29e9bf17@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9ephc+dvga@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37816

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> Dicentra:
> 
> > The ancients refer to Sirius as a "ruddy" colored star, leading some
> > scientists to wonder if Sirius used to look red, which is why Sirius
> > was also called "bloody."  Bloody Sirius. Dog Sirius. Freedom Sirius.
> > That can't be a coincidence, can it, Jo?
> 
> IIRC, that's because Sirius used to have a companion star, a red
giant , 
> which has now collapsed. As you say, it isn't anymore. If anyone
actually 
> manages to *see* Sirius these days, throught the light pollution,
it's almost 
> blue, sparkling multicoloured (like a diamond in the sky, as the
nursery 
> rhyme has it).
> 
> I'm rather simplistic when it comes to these name things. Can't we just 
> accept that Sirius Black = black dog, thus giving the alert reader
the clue 
> as to who the black dog Harry keeps seeing really is?
> 

Well, yes.  That would be the most logical reason.  And if you ask JKR
why the name Sirius, I don't think she'd go any farther than your
explanation.  But...

::draws herself up, lower lip trembling::

...I was trained in Literary Theory, and it is therefore my sworn duty
to wrest the text from the author's control and squeeze any and all
Meaning out of the text, no matter how distorted or far-fetched or
cock-eyed it may be. 

::sniff::

And besides, it's more fun this way.

--Dicentra, whose fun threshold is dangerously low




From alexp at alltel.net  Mon Apr 15 14:32:48 2002
From: alexp at alltel.net (Greg Pyron)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:32:48 -0400
Subject: Filkin' Around, On A Monday Morning!!
Message-ID: <OJECJNFKJKLAIKEAMJKFCEMLCFAA.alexp@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37817

FILK, "Voldy"-TTTO "Lola," The Kinks

(Harry, Sitting alone in the Three Broomsticks, has a flashback and starts
singing.)

HARRY:
I met him at my house when I was one year old,
We were living as Muggles, couldn't magically clean so it was Moldy,
M-O-L-D-Y
He came to our place when Peter spilled the beans,
He came in through the front door and he made a scene; his name was Voldy
V-O-L-D-Y, Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy, Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy

Well, I'm not the world's most powerful wizard,
but when he cast AK' on me, well I bounced it back at my Voldy,
Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy

Well, I'm not dumb but I can't understand,
how it ripped his soul from his body when he isn't a man, Oh My Voldy
Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy, Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy

Well He fled from the ruins of my house that night,
Incorporeal, What a sight!
Hagrid picked me up and put me on the seat,
And said 'Dear boy, come to the Dursley's with Me!'

Well, I'm not the world's most tolerant guy,
So when I went to the Dursley's, well I almost cried for my Voldy,
Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy, Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy
Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy, Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy

(FLASH FORWARD TO MIRROR OF ERISED CHAMBER)

I pushed his hand away,
I grabbed Quirrel's face,
I fought for the stone,
I heard him scream 'Kill him, Please'

And that is the way that it's going to stay,
And it's always going to be that way with my Voldy,
Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy

Riddle's diary will possess, But I won't confess,
When Dumbly gives me a good twinkling about Voldy,
Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy

Well I learned my lesson in GOF,
When Voldy came back, by the theft
Of blood from my body, and the bone of his dad,
And mixed it in a cauldron that turned bright Red

And it made Wormtail really mad
To lose his hand
And get treated like dirt by his Voldy,
Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy, Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy

Cause cutting bone
With a dagger can really hurt,
And you can't quite stem the flow of blood just using a shirt
>From your Voldy,

Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy, Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy
Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy, Vo-vo-vo-vo-Voldy

(Dedicated to Anne Kiely and Jill Prewett, the Godmothers of Swing)

-Alex




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Mon Apr 15 16:45:13 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:45:13 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
In-Reply-To: <a9eoc1+h6dt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <28616671-5090-11D6-9CD3-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37818

Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote:
> > I had assumed that the eagle owl belonged to
> > Crouch/Moody.? I never dreamed it was Draco's.
> >
> > Is this evidence that Draco himself is in contact
> > with Voldemort?? Or do you suppose that all Death
> > Eaters have eagle owls?

Grey Wolf replied:

> There is no canon to back up the eagle owl theory. We do know that
> Draco gets food from his parents via an eagle owl (Harry mentions it in
> PS at the very beggining, when he's explaining us how the mornings go
> at Hogwarts). The stretch of asuming that it is the same eagle owl that
> Harry "flies" is one I'm not willing to do, but it is possible from a
> theorical point of view. We cannot dismiss either that the DE used
> eagle owls for communication, but again there's no canon for that.

True, and a I think we can safely assume that neither Draco nor Lucius 
was in league with Voldemort at this point in GoF; Voldemort speaks to 
Lucius in the graveyard scene as if they haven't communicated since 
before LV's downfall. The eagle owl could have been Crouch Jr.'s and I 
do like the idea that 'aristocratic' pureblood DE's might make a habit 
of using eagle owls. But it does seem that there are only a finite 
number of owl types that get used as couriers, so there's bound to be 
some overlap in the series.

We do know that Crouch Jr. was communicating with LV during his time at 
Hogwarts. Under polyjuice he says: "My father escaped. My master guessed 
that he was heading for Hogwarts. My father was going to tell Dumbledore 
everything, to confess. He was going to admit that he had smuggled me 
from Azkaban My master sent me word of my father's escape. He told me to 
stop him at all costs."

And we see the eagle owl fly away sometime before Crouch Sr. shows up 
raving. So it's possible it's in the process of carrying Crouch Jr.'s 
communication with LV.

However, at the risk of being fussy over a parenthetical remark this 
early in the week, Grey Wolf also said:

> (I should remind everyone in the list that we do
> not, in fact, know for certain that Draco's father was a DE: there
> could be another Malfoy - and a Crabbe and a Goyle too. No, I too
> believe that they're guilty, but Harry didn't *really* see their
> faces).

Here's the quote from the graveyard scene:

<<
"Lucius, my slippery friend," [LV] whispered, halting before him. "I am 
told that you have not renounced the old ways, though to the world you 
present a respectable face. You are still ready to take the lead in a 
spot of Muggle-torture, I believe? Yet you never tried to find me, 
Lucius....Your exploits at the Quidditch World Cup were fun, I 
daresay...but might not your energies have been better directed toward 
finding and aiding your master?"

"My Lord, I was constantly on the alert," came Lucius Malfoy's voice 
swiftly from beneath the hood.
 >>

Why shouldn't we assume this is the same guy? He's referred to by both 
first and last name. Harry has encountered Lucius Malfoy on several 
occasions, at least three times in CoS and more recently at the QWC. 
Surely he can recognize Lucius's voice. And I don't think he'd make a 
positive id to Fudge if he weren't sure.

Granted the Crabbe and Goyle in the graveyard scene could be Uncle 
Crabbe and Grandpa Goyle, but somehow I doubt it. JKR seems too intent 
on setting up generational parallels and providing opportunities for 
children to either take after their parents or choose not to. I don't 
immediately see why this should be an exception, so I'll go ahead and 
assume these two are Dad and Dad for now.

Is it just me or would anyone else love it if in some future book 
Vincent Crabbe hauls himself into Snape's office and says "You know 
Professor, my parents really want me to get involved with this Death 
Eater thing, but I've been thinking a lot about it lately, and I don't 
know...it just seems *morally wrong* somehow."

Any takers for a prediction? :-)

~~Porphyria


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From landers at email.unc.edu  Mon Apr 15 16:59:25 2002
From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:59:25 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
Message-ID: <3CBB06ED.AC6FE140@email.unc.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 37819

Gray Wolf:
Against the theory is the fact that none of the three DE we know use 
it: V has Nagini, Wormtail has (if any) a rat and Criuch Jr. didn't 
look like having one (I should remind everyone in the list that we do 
not, in fact, know for certain that Draco's father was a DE: there 
could be another Malfoy - and a Crabbe and a Goyle too. No, I too 
believe that they're guilty, but Harry didn't *really* see their 
faces).
*No, Harry didn't see their faces, but if you look in Chap. 33...
"Wormtail stood up and took his place in the circle, staring at his
pwoerful new hand, his face still shining with tears.  Voldemort now
approached the man on Wormtail's right.
"Lucius, my slippery friend," ...
"My Lord, I was constantly on the alert," came Lucius Malfoy's voice
swiftly from under the hood." ...

Further on:
"There was a silence.  Then the Death Eater to the right of Wormtail
stepped forward, and Lucius Malfoy's voice spoke from under the mask."

This *must* be Draco's father.  Harry recognizes his voice, and Lucius
isn't a common name.

Betty



From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 17:38:20 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:38:20 -0000
Subject: Ron as seventh son
In-Reply-To: <a8csb2+dppk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9f36c+m59p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37820

Cassandra Claire wrote:

>The Seventh Son mythology is well 
> established although I don't know where it originates -- I know 
> Achilles was the seventh son of Thetis, I know Orson Scott Card 
drew 
> on the seventh son myths in his Alvin Maker series, but I'm unsure 
> where it began.

In The Dark is Rising, the key is that Will is the seventh son of a 
seventh son, and I believe that mythology is also well-established, 
though I can't put my finger on where I have come across it before.

JKR would surely not be so patriarchal.  If seven is a magic number, 
isn't it enough to be the seventh child?  In which case we have two 
other possibilities:  (a) Ginny is a Seer or (b) Ron is a Seer 
because he is his parents' seventh child, but the missing Weasley 
could have been a girl.  Unless the nature of magic really is that 
boys are more special <snort>.

;-)
Amy Z




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 17:56:45 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:56:45 -0000
Subject: Grins/tears and favorite bits(was: Re: Variations of Favourite Bits)
In-Reply-To: <02e701c1e267$6b8d0f40$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <a9f48t+kpv9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37821

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" <feliciarickmann at d...> 
wrote:
> Having submitted one post, my brain (recently returned from sick 
>leave) pounced on another.  There is one section that makes me laugh 
>out loud - well it did when I was reading it on London 
>Underground......


Decided now that we're talking grins and tears, I'd toss in my two 
cents on all of it.

Favorite part:
My favorite part in all of the books so far is the shrieking shack in 
general, and in particular this bit:

                  ------------------------

<<<<"I thought you'd come and help your friend," he said hoarsely.
His voice sounded as though he had long since lost the habit of using
it. "Your father would have done the same for me. Brave of you) not to
run for a teacher. I'm grateful... it will make everything much
easier...."

The taunt about his father rang in Harry's ears as though Black had
bellowed it. A boiling hate erupted in Harry's chest, leaving no place
for fear. For the first time in his life, he wanted his wand back in 
his hand, not to defend himself, but to attack... to kill. Without 
knowing what he was doing, he started forward, but there was a sudden 
movement on either side of him and two pairs of hands grabbed him and 
held him back.... "No, Harry!" Hermione gasped in a petrified 
whisper; Ron, however, spoke to Black.

"If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too!" he said
fiercely, though the effort of standing upright was draining him of
still more color, and he swayed slightly as he spoke.

Something flickered in Black's shadowed eyes.  "Lie down," he said 
quietly to Ron. "You will damage that leg even more."

"Did you hear me?" Ron said weakly, though he was clinging painfully 
to Harry to stay upright. "You'll have to kill all three of us!">>>>

            --------------------------------------

It's just such a fantastic trio moment.  Plus, it gives me something 
to ponder.  I have to wonder about the flickering in Black's eyes.  
That interests me at least as much as Dumbledore's gleam of triumph.  
What does the flicker mean?  At first I sort of felt like it was a 
flicker of recogniton of a kindred spirit - someone else who would 
not hesitate to die for his friends, and for Harry in particular, but 
if that's what it was, then his response, first <<<<"Lie down," he 
said quietly to Ron. "You will damage that leg even more.">>>> and 
then <<<<"There'll be only one murder here tonight," said Brack, and 
his grin widened.>>>> doesn't seem to follow from it.  The lie down 
bit, maybe, is an attempt at kindness, but it doesn't seem much like 
it since he then goes about grinning frighteningly about murder with 
no explanation.

So anybody else got any ideas about the flicker?


Grins:
As for the grins, my favorite bit is when the map taunts Snape.  I 
was in a waiting room when I read that and I couldn't stop myself 
laughing - I tried, but I was sitting there in a crowd of strangers 
chuckling to myself.  I finally had to explain to the person sitting 
next to me.  


Tears:
And for tears, I admit I've cried several times, but the worst was 
when Harry was lying face-down on the quidditch pitch, refusing to 
let go of poor dead Cedric's arm.  His grief was just so tangible - I 
felt it in my throat.

Great, now I'm all choked up again.  Drat.

kimberly
a little too emotional






From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Mon Apr 15 18:08:24 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:08:24 -0000
Subject: Weatherby
In-Reply-To: <a9a54n+hkbc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9f4uo+7eoj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37822

Green things and salivations.

Barbara, who flies with canons, wrote:

> Crouch also refers to Percy as "Weatherby" when he -
> Percy - is not even present (Chapter 17). Following the revelations of
> the Goblet of Fire, the first task has been explained to the champions
> by the judges. Dumbledore asks Crouch if he wouldn't like to stay at
> Hogwarts overnight.
>
> ...'No, Dumbledore, I must get back to the Ministry,' said Mr Crouch.
> 'It is a very busy, very difficult time at the moment ... I've left
> young Weatherby in charge ... very enthusiastic ... a little
> over-enthusiastic, if truth be told...' ...
>

Nicely spotted, Barbara. However, there is one other instance where
Crouch refers to a "Weatherby," and it is in this final scene that I
think the key lies.

It's in Chapter 28, "The Madness of Mr Crouch." Crouch is behaving
very peculiarly, talking to trees and such, and he mentions Weatherby
three times. The first two are probably in reference to Percy, because
they also relate to the Triwizard Tournament:

1. "...and when you've done that, Weatherby, send an owl to Dumbledore
confirming the number of Durmstrang students who will be attending the
tournament, Karkaroff has just sent word there will be twelve...."

2. "...and then send another owl to Madame Maxime, because she might
want to up the number of students she's bringing, now Karkaroff's made
it a round dozen...do that, Weatherby, will you?"

However, the next time Crouch mentions the name Weatherby, it's in
conjunction with a much older memory:

3. "Thank you, Weatherby, and when you have done that, I would like a
cup of tea. My wife and son will be arriving shortly, we are attending
a concert tonight with Mr and Mrs Fudge."

Crouch's next statement is to brag about Jr.'s 12 O.W.L.'s, and though
it's not clearly indicated, I believe it to be a continuation of the
remembered conversation, much as his second statement is a
continuation of the list of instructions he gave Percy. So these
clearly refer to a time before Crouch Jr.'s imprisonment.

We learn later that Crouch has been fighting the Imperius Curse at
least since the beginning of the year, and that his confusion was
almost certainly a side effect of the mental energy of breaking the
curse--the effort drives him mad.

This is the same struggle going on in Crouch in chapter 17, when he
refuses Dumbledore's offers to stay the night, and calls Percy
"Weatherby" again.

I believe that "Weatherby" is actually the name of a *former*
assistant of Crouch's, perhaps one who was a lot like Percy. I think
it's this similarity that reminds Crouch of Weatherby when he thinks
of Percy--and that lends to his confusion after the Curse is placed on
him.

At first, I thought Crouch may have already had Imperius cast before
the Quidditch World Cup. The timeline is ambiguous, although it
strongly suggests that Voldemort did not make contact until after the
event. However, it may be possible that he *did* arrange to Imperius
Barty Sr. before the cup, or else decided he needed to enlist Barty
Jr. prior to the cup, and perhaps at that time, Crouch is suffering
from the combinative effects of Imperius and a memory charm.

If that is so, then at no point in GoF do we see Crouch when he has
not been the victim of dark spellwork. The confusion over
Weasley/Weatherby, whether initially magically induced or not,
however, I think clearly derives from a previous employee's name, and
the blurring of past and present Crouch suffers under the curse.

Gwen





From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Mon Apr 15 16:42:54 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 15 Apr 2002 16:42:54 -0000
Subject: File - hbfile.html 
Message-ID: <1018888974.120474073.31245.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37823

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020415/05e9bfa3/attachment.html>

From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Mon Apr 15 16:42:54 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 15 Apr 2002 16:42:54 -0000
Subject: File - VFAQ.htm 
Message-ID: <1018888974.120473494.31245.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37824

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020415/96c79211/attachment.html>

From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Apr 15 18:00:49 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:00:49 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eagle Owl /WW name trends
Message-ID: <72.1adccec9.29ec6f51@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37825

Porphyria:
> True, and a I think we can safely assume that neither Draco nor Lucius 
> was in league with Voldemort at this point in GoF; Voldemort speaks to 
> Lucius in the graveyard scene as if they haven't communicated since 
> before LV's downfall. The eagle owl could have been Crouch Jr.'s and I 
> do like the idea that 'aristocratic' pureblood DE's might make a habit 
> of using eagle owls. But it does seem that there are only a finite 
> number of owl types that get used as couriers, so there's bound to be 
> some overlap in the series.

The latter is probably true, however JKR is not in the habit of putting in 
descriptive little scenes which have nothing to do with the plot, so I think 
there has to be some significance to it. Whether it is a Malfoy connection is 
hard to say, but I think we must be meant to associate it with the one Harry 
rides in his dream. Harry's dreams seem to be visions, don't they? I think we 
can assume that it *was* an eagle owl that delivered the news of Crouch Sr's 
death. (I also wonder as an aside if there's a significance to it being noted 
over Hagrid's plot where he's burying the gold, the plot later used by Crouch 
Jr to bury the bone which was his father, although I suspect she's using one 
scene to draw attention to several points).

What you say about Lucius is true and there was obviously no love lost 
between him and Crouch Jr (at least from the latter's side). But this doesn't 
mean that the Malfoys didn't know anything about the plot. No, Grey Wolf, I 
know there isn't canon, but I don't think there's canon excluding it either. 
Malfoy's a pretty big cheese. I suspect that he have ways of finding things 
out. The fact that Crouch Jr both hated his guts and was in a favoured 
position with Voldemort might put him into quite a difficult situation. We 
don't know that *they* were not in communication or that Crouch Jr was not 
exploiting his advantage,  The bouncing ferret episode may not just have been 
a warning to Draco, or yet another of those occasions when he's telling us in 
a veiled form what he's up to. It may have been an overt message to Lucius: 
'Co-operate with me, or else.' 

Grey Wolf:
> > (I should remind everyone in the list that we do
> > not, in fact, know for certain that Draco's father was a DE: there
> > could be another Malfoy - and a Crabbe and a Goyle too. No, I too
> > believe that they're guilty, but Harry didn't *really* see their
> > faces).


If I'm ever on trial, Grey Wolf, I sure hope you're on the jury. :-)

Porphyria:

> Is it just me or would anyone else love it if in some future book 
> Vincent Crabbe hauls himself into Snape's office and says "You know 
> Professor, my parents really want me to get involved with this Death 
> Eater thing, but I've been thinking a lot about it lately, and I don't 
> know...it just seems *morally wrong* somehow."

Lol! 
Crabbe, think? 
I've just realised that Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle are both have 
saints' names. How delightfully inappropriate.

........................

Dicentra quotes me:

>> I'm rather simplistic when it comes to these name things. Can't we just 
>> accept that Sirius Black = black dog, thus giving the alert reader
>>the clue 
>> as to who the black dog Harry keeps seeing really is?


>Well, yes.  That would be the most logical reason.  And if you ask JKR
>why the name Sirius, I don't think she'd go any farther than your
>explanation.  But...

>::draws herself up, lower lip trembling::

>...I was trained in Literary Theory, and it is therefore my sworn duty
>to wrest the text from the author's control and squeeze any and all
>Meaning out of the text, no matter how distorted or far-fetched or
>cock-eyed it may be. 

>::sniff::

>And besides, it's more fun this way.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to try to spoil your fun, honest! :-) It's just 
that I'm blessed/cursed with a very literal turn of mind which means that I 
often see the funny side of things which are quite serious, but on the other 
hand <hangs head> on occasions like this it makes me a horrid kill-joy. I'll 
work on it.

Eloise, who's very glad she proof-read this as she'd inadvertently given 
Lucius a massage instead of a message. (And is very glad *that* wasn't 
literal!)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com  Mon Apr 15 17:55:05 2002
From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:55:05 +0100
Subject: Dedications and anon.
References: <1018793575.10385.31263.m12@yahoogroups.com> <3CBA2B78.8092033C@ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <007401c1e4a6$ace6de80$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 37826


> Book two is dedicated to Sean P. F. Harris (owned turquoise Ford Anglia,
in which he and Rowling >drove around as teens; also lent her money for
deposit on a flat, when Rowling returned from Portugal, >after end of her
marriage to Jorge Arantes)

Firstly, I hope, that Sean P F Harris did not own one of the fourteen Ford
Angila's trashed recently in the interest of cinematic verisimilitude??

>::draws herself up, lower lip trembling::

...I was trained in Literary Theory, and it is therefore my sworn duty
to wrest the text from the author's control and squeeze any and all
Meaning out of the text, no matter how distorted or far-fetched or
cock-eyed it may be.

::sniff::

And besides, it's more fun this way.

--Dicentra, whose fun threshold is dangerously low

Secondly, as a super-low fellow fun-thresholder treads off into the sunset.
I confess that I have largely taken the books names at their wit-packed and
very clever face value and enjoyed them without devling too deep, perhaps
this is why I am still surprised at HPfGU listers inventiveness with canon!
Thank you everybody.

Felicia






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Apr 15 18:12:09 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:12:09 -0000
Subject: The Mysterious Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
In-Reply-To: <28616671-5090-11D6-9CD3-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a9f55p+njl2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37827

Porphyria wrote:

>The eagle owl could have been Crouch Jr.'s and I 
> do like the idea that 'aristocratic' pureblood DE's might make a 
>habit 
> of using eagle owls. 

<snip>
 
> And we see the eagle owl fly away sometime before Crouch Sr. shows 
up 
> raving. So it's possible it's in the process of carrying Crouch 
Jr.'s 
> communication with LV.
> 

Oh my.  It sounds like we're finally ready to crack the mystery of 
what that eagle owl was doing in GoF.  To get started, we can have a 
look at Amy's especially impressive LOON analysis from a prior 
message:

************

Amy wrote (about whether the eagle owl was carrying a letter about 
Crouch Sr.):


In GF 35, Crouch Jr. says "My master sent me word of my father's 
escape . . . . For a week I waited for my father to arrive at 
Hogwarts. At last, one evening, the map showed my father entering the 
grounds," and it was that evening that he killed him. So, about a 
week between the letter (or however he received word) and the murder.

But here's the chronology in GF 27 and 28, with copious evidence that 
there is well over a month between the eagle owl Harry sees from the 
Owlery and the death of Crouch Sr:

(27) Sirius's owl arrives in March (not absolutely conclusive but 
almost so), asking Harry to meet him at the stile "Saturday."

(28) "Harry, Ron and Hermione went up to the Owlery after breakfast 
on 
Sunday," surely the next day or else it would have been described as 
"one Sunday" or "the next week." They go down to the kitchens, Ron 
and Hermione bicker for the rest of the day, and Harry goes up to the 
Owlery on his own to get a break from them.

Harry sees the eagle owl while watching Hagrid from the Owlery.

"Next day" Hermione receives her lovely missive filled with bubotuber 
pus.

"Over the following week" she continues to receive hate mail. This 
would seem to bring us up to just about the date Crouch Sr. arrives. 
But read on:

After their "next Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson" Hermione 
talks 
about trying to find out how Rita's getting her information. 
"Hermione, however, did not ask Harry and Ron to help her pursue 
vengeance against Rita Skeeter, for which they were both grateful, 
because their workload was mounting ever higher in the run-up to the 
Easter holidays."

"Hedwig didn't return until the end of the Easter holidays." I don't 
know exactly when the Easter holidays are nor how long they are, and 
the time that elapses is uncertain from this point, but

"in the last week of May, Professor McGonagall held [Harry] back in 
Transfiguration" and told him to meet Bagman and the other champions 
on the Quidditch field that night.

So Crouch Sr. doesn't show up until after the Easter holidays, and we 
have further confirmation that he arrives in the last week of May.

Whatever the eagle owl was up to the evening Harry stood alone in the 
Owlery (and I'm sure it was nothing good <g>), it wasn't delivering 
the news that Crouch Sr. had escaped. It was just way too early.

************

Then, I posted a question about why we often assume that the owl was 
carrying a letter to Hogwarts instead of the other way around:

***********

Cindy wrote:

I'm not following you guys. Why are we sure that the eagle owl is 
arriving with a message instead of being sent to deliver a message? 
The text is:

"An eagle owl flew through the coil of smoke rising from Hagrid's 
chimney; it soared toward the castle, around the Owlery, and out of 
sight."

Yes, the owl could have gone into the Owlery or castle after it flew 
out of sight. But if it were delivering a message to someone in the 
castle, wouldn't it deliver the message right away and go straight 
into the castle without the detour around the Owlery? If it were 
going to rest in the Owlery first and then deliver the message in the 
morning, why doesn't it go straight into the Owlery?

If the owl is in fact being sent from the grounds to deliver a 
message, who sent it and what's the message? Hard to say. The 
events right before the appearance of the eagle owl are (working 
backward):

Conversation with Dobby and Winky in the kitchens
Visit with Sirius in the cave
Karkaroff showing Snape his Dark Mark in Potions class
Harry's performance in the Second Task

Is Karkaroff sending an owl to someone about the appearance of the 
dark mark on his arm? Doesn't seem likely. Is Moody sending an owl 
to Voldemort informing him that Harry survived the Second Task? 
That makes some sense, although I am unsure how many days pass 
between the completion of the Second Task and the eagle owl's 
appearance. Can we find a way to implicate Bagman? <vbg>

************

So.  What was that darn eagle owl doing that night?

Cindy (wondering if it is Hagrid's eagle owl, which would make Hagrid 
Ever So Evil)







From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Mon Apr 15 18:46:55 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:46:55 -0000
Subject: Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
In-Reply-To: <28616671-5090-11D6-9CD3-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a9f76v+5b69@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37828

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:

> Is it just me or would anyone else love it if in some future book 
> Vincent Crabbe hauls himself into Snape's office and says "You know 
> Professor, my parents really want me to get involved with this Death 
> Eater thing, but I've been thinking a lot about it lately, and I
don't 
> know...it just seems *morally wrong* somehow."

I don't know about Crabbe or Goyle, but I would certainly like to see
*some* Slytherin haul him/herself into Snape's office and say
something along those lines?  After all, when it comes right down to
it, isn't it part of Snape's job as head of Slytherin House to make
sure it's what they do?

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 19:22:19 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:22:19 -0000
Subject: Draco's break from Lucius (Was Re: Draco's redemption)
In-Reply-To: <20020413214707.18114.qmail@web13403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a9f99c+21h9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37829

Any discussion of Draco's redemption (which I trhink would be a great 
twist) MUST include consuderation of Draco's relationship with Daddy 
Lucius.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Rohit Puskoor <columbiatexan at y...> wrote:
> (about that scene in Borgin & Burkes in Book 2)I just assumed it 
> was there to give us an idea of what kind of evil guy Lucius Malfoy 
> was, and that he was up to no good (and also to give us an 
> indication of how much antipathy there was between Lucius and
> Arthur).  

> I don't think a redemption of Draco Malfoy is likely to
> happen.  I think this redemption is going to have to remain 
> squarely in the readers' imagination; 

Agreed Draco's redemption is unlikely and by no means definite, but 
it would evolve the character beyond a 1-dimensional racist rich kid. 
That character development marks a great book from a merely good one.

> I would have bought it all the way until the end of Book 4, because 
> until then, Malfoy's comments have been solely restricted to the
> realm of being a snotty, bratty little rich boy.  But his comments 
> at the end of Book 4 (right before Harry, Hermione, the twins, and 
> Ron hit him with the barrage of curses) to me indicates where his 
> future path lies.
>  What he said about Hermione, Ron and then WHAT HE SAID ABOUT 
> CEDRIC was so cold-blooded, so atrocious, so disgusting, it made me 
> lose any hope I had for his redemption and any sympathy for him at 
> all. Think about it

Ok Compare Lucius and Draco through the four books. Draco, though a 
bully and instigator has done little that cannot be forgiven. For the 
most part, his actions were limited to 'words', insulting mudbloods, 
teasing Harry, and making racist comments. (Agreed, his comments 
about Cedric were bad, but not unforgiveable yet, after all, Darth 
Vader came back in the last movie)

Lucius, from history, committed numerous atrocities in the LV war and 
lied about being under the Imperius curse. In Ch of Secrets, he 
committed what I consider High Treason, Conspiracy to commit murder, 
and numerous charges of blackmail for his actions with Riddle's Diary.
Trying to kill Buckbeak in PofA would again Conspiracy and 
Obstruction of Justice. In GofF, again High Treason, Conspiracy to 
commit murder, and attempted murder for his attack on Harry in the 
graveyard.

Draco, for all his badness, seems to be following his Dad's example 
and trying to satisfy what he has been taught was the qualities of a 
great wizard. 

MY POINT, what will Draco do if his perception of 'a great wizard' 
changes? When Lucius does what he considers 'unforgivable'?

> Draco seems to have just gotten worse and worse throughout the 4 
> books.  He has not shown one *iota* of caring for anything except 
> himself...

Oh? Consider his devotion of his mother. In GOF Ch.13, we see Draco 
get angry enough to attack Harry from behind and away from Snape. 
This is unusal because every other duel seemed to have been planned 
to be near Snape so Draco would be safe from any repercussions. What 
got Draco angry? Harry mentioned his mother...

> Unless Narcissa Malfoy is secretly a good person trapped in a
> loveless marriage (and so far, all we know about her is she's a 
> very snobby rich woman with her nose in the air looking down at 
> everything), I just don't see where he's going to get the guidance 
> for redemption. 

What I can reasonably assume about Narcissa, is that Draco has a 
devotion to her and she has the same for Draco. As far as Lucius, I 
would not put any evil act past him. 

What happens in book 5 depends on MoM politics. Will Lucius be a 
fugitive, or on an 'extended trip' for LV? 

***PURE BRAINSTORMING WARNING*** 
Suppose that Voldemort gathers the DE's and their families for a 
planning session. He starts applying Crucio indescriminately to 
instill terror and fear. Something about Draco or Narcissa's look 
attracts LV's attention and someone says the wrong thing...

Narcissa: My husband never abandoned you, My Lord. It was he who 
tried to remove Dumbledore...

LV: WHO ARE YOU TO SPEAK TO ME! MALFOY THIS IS YOUR WOMAN?

Lucius: Yes my Lord.

LV: You wish to prove your loyalty?

Lucius: I will do anything my Lord...

LV Then Choose...

Here Voldemort may demand Lucius kill Narcissa, Crucio her, or even 
more evil Choose between killing and casting crucio on Draco or 
Narcissa. I think that would be unforgivable to Draco.

OR more simply Lord V would kill Lucius and Draco has to decide 
whether to follow LV on his own.

> NAGINI'S BANE was a really clever acronym Tabouli came up
> with--I don't remember exactly what it stands for (you
> can look it up though, it's in one of her more recent
> posts), but it basically states that the thoroughly
> underestimated Neville and Ginny will prove to be far
> more formidable than they've been given credit for

Imagine if at some point Neville or Ginny saves Draco. Would Draco 
owe some life sebt to them?

Opinions?
Uncmark




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr 15 19:35:51 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:35:51 -0000
Subject: The Mysterious Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
In-Reply-To: <a9f55p+njl2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9fa2n+t5s4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37830

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
><snip: detailed canon analisys of the eagle-owl>
> So.  What was that darn eagle owl doing that night?
> 
> Cindy (wondering if it is Hagrid's eagle owl, which would make Hagrid 
> Ever So Evil)

Maybe the owl was just out looking for supper? Owls DO like to eat mice 
and, in fact, need to feed on bones and other discusting bits so they 
can form balls with the inedible bits (I'm sorry, I don't know the 
English name for those balls, but I DO know that they are an indicaion 
of the owl's health). I don't entirely agree with the feeding habits of 
Harry's Hedwig, which only seems to go out to hunt when they're on 
Privet Drive, but I just imagine that those are the uninteresting 
parragraphs JKR cuts when she finds out she's witten a 3000-page book 
and she realises she has to cut it down somewhat.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 20:20:17 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:20:17 -0000
Subject: Snape and Slytherin
In-Reply-To: <a9f76v+5b69@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9fcm1+749v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37831

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
> 
> > Is it just me or would anyone else love it if in some future book 
> > Vincent Crabbe hauls himself into Snape's office and says "You know 
> > Professor, my parents really want me to get involved with this Death 
> > Eater thing, but I've been thinking a lot about it lately, and I
> don't 
> > know...it just seems *morally wrong* somehow."
> 
> I don't know about Crabbe or Goyle, but I would certainly like to see
> *some* Slytherin haul him/herself into Snape's office and say
> something along those lines?  After all, when it comes right down to
> it, isn't it part of Snape's job as head of Slytherin House to make
> sure it's what they do?

Actually, I've been wondering if that isn't going to be a problem for Snape 
in the coming books.  If Snape has indeed gone back to spy on Voldemort, 
he has to maintain the appearance of being a secret Death Eater - there 
are too many children of DEs in Slytherin house to allow him to show 
sympathy for Dumbledore's side without jeopordizing his cover.   I'm not 
saying he's going to throw Muggle hate rallies - his students, after all, would 
believe him to be a spy for Voldemort, and wouldn't expect such overt 
demonstrations of loyalty.  Probably Snape would do well to stick to the 
model he set in CoS when Draco suggested he replace Dumbledore - it's 
often assumed that what Snape wanted to do was box the kid's ears, but 
he wisely kept his mouth shut and his feelings open to interpretation.  

I can certainly imagine a situation in which Snape sees that a Slytherin 
student (Draco or C&B, or anybody else) is teetering over the edge and 
just needs a bit of a push to come back to the light side - but of course 
Snape can't give that push because he doesn't dare risk his mission.  
There are greater things at stake than one kid's soul, right?  I think this 
might be a major  dilemma for Snape, pitting his duties as head of house 
against his duties to Dumbledore and the greater good.

I don't happen to be one of the people who believe that Snape secretly 
hates Draco or that he's trying to weaken the next generation of DE by 
being soft on the Slytherins.  I think Snape is a proud Slytherin, and that 
he'd like to see his house come out from under the cloud of suspicion 
cast by all those DE members.  Ironically, his very attempts to atone for 
some of that shame might help to lead a new generation of Slytherins 
astray, for lack of a positive Slytherin role model.

And while we're talking of Snape (and when are we ever not?) a week or 
so ago someone was talking about the scene in GoF where the trio go to 
meet Sirius in his cave near Hogsmeade.  The poster was wondering 
about the fact that all the statements Sirius makes about DEs in that 
scene turn out to be false (Crouch Jr., for example, was guilty as sin).  It 
occurs to me that one of those statements was about Snape, and I was 
wondering, in the face of the powerful evidence that Snape might be a 
DE (his involvement with future DEs in school, his background in the Dark 
Arts) that Sirius lists, not to mention his own personal dislike of the man, 
what makes Sirius so reluctant to believe that Snape was a DE?  Is it just 
because Dumbledore trusts him?  Any thoughts?

Abigail





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Mon Apr 15 18:28:01 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:28:01 -0000
Subject: Grins/tears and favorite bits(was: Re: Variations of Favourite Bits)
In-Reply-To: <a9f48t+kpv9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9f63h+t3vc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37832

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "moongirlk" <moongirlk at y...> wrote:

> "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too!" he said
> fiercely, though the effort of standing upright was draining him of
> still more color, and he swayed slightly as he spoke.
> 
> Something flickered in Black's shadowed eyes.  "Lie down," he said 
> quietly to Ron. "You will damage that leg even more."
> 
> "Did you hear me?" Ron said weakly, though he was clinging painfully 
> to Harry to stay upright. "You'll have to kill all three of us!">>>>
> 
>             --------------------------------------
> 
> It's just such a fantastic trio moment.  Plus, it gives me something 
> to ponder.  I have to wonder about the flickering in Black's eyes.  
> That interests me at least as much as Dumbledore's gleam of
triumph.  
> What does the flicker mean?  

I think it was guilt.  When Ron stood up and spoke like that, Sirius
was finally forced to see him not as an anonymous obstacle between
himself and Wormtail, but as a person -- a really good and loyal
person whom Sirius, in his single-minded pursuit of vengeance, has
badly injured.  Being a basically decent guy, Sirius feels bad about
it (hence his telling Ron to lie down -- it really was an attempt at
kindness); but being rather unhinged at the time, he quickly swings
back to his original vengeful mindset.

We get another show of guilt later, as Sirius is about to fly off on
Bugbeak, when he lingers to ask Harry if Ron is okay.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From sandirs at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 15 20:57:03 2002
From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:57:03 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Mysterious Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
Message-ID: <F257FEygjsuVxpwaknH0000ef4e@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37833

Re: the eagle owl discussion

Note: Throughout the series so far, only one person has been mentioned more 
than once as possessing an eagle owl:  Draco Malfoy.

I'm very fond of owls, but I had never heard of an eagle owl.  I researched 
them online and found that they are a European bird not found in North 
America.  Just as Sirius warned harry not to use Hedwig to messenger their 
correspondence because she would attract too much attention, not being of a 
species native  to Britain, so the eagle owl is really unknown here.

It does, however, resemble our very commmon  great horned owl, which is 
slightly smaller, but belongs to the same genus, Bubo, as the eagle (aka the 
Eurasian owl. This includes the largest owls in the world.

Of course Malfoy would have to have the biggest of anything, wouldn't he, 
and the eagle owl, by size alone, would be easily noticed and recognized.

Sandi Steinberg


>>Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:12:09 -0000
>
>Porphyria wrote:
>
> >The eagle owl could have been Crouch Jr.'s and I
> > do like the idea that 'aristocratic' pureblood DE's might make a
> >habit
> > of using eagle owls.
>
><snip>
>
> > And we see the eagle owl fly away sometime before Crouch Sr. shows
>up
> > raving. So it's possible it's in the process of carrying Crouch
>Jr.'s
> > communication with LV.
> >
>
>Oh my.  It sounds like we're finally ready to crack the mystery of
>what that eagle owl was doing in GoF.  To get started, we can have a
>look at Amy's especially impressive LOON analysis from a prior
>message:
>
>************
>
>Amy wrote (about whether the eagle owl was carrying a letter about
>Crouch Sr.):
>
>
>In GF 35, Crouch Jr. says "My master sent me word of my father's
>escape . . . . For a week I waited for my father to arrive at
>Hogwarts. At last, one evening, the map showed my father entering the
>grounds," and it was that evening that he killed him. So, about a
>week between the letter (or however he received word) and the murder.
>
>But here's the chronology in GF 27 and 28, with copious evidence that
>there is well over a month between the eagle owl Harry sees from the
>Owlery and the death of Crouch Sr:
>
>(27) Sirius's owl arrives in March (not absolutely conclusive but
>almost so), asking Harry to meet him at the stile "Saturday."
>
>(28) "Harry, Ron and Hermione went up to the Owlery after breakfast
>on
>Sunday," surely the next day or else it would have been described as
>"one Sunday" or "the next week." They go down to the kitchens, Ron
>and Hermione bicker for the rest of the day, and Harry goes up to the
>Owlery on his own to get a break from them.
>
>Harry sees the eagle owl while watching Hagrid from the Owlery.
>
>"Next day" Hermione receives her lovely missive filled with bubotuber
>pus.
>
>"Over the following week" she continues to receive hate mail. This
>would seem to bring us up to just about the date Crouch Sr. arrives.
>But read on:
>
>After their "next Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson" Hermione
>talks
>about trying to find out how Rita's getting her information.
>"Hermione, however, did not ask Harry and Ron to help her pursue
>vengeance against Rita Skeeter, for which they were both grateful,
>because their workload was mounting ever higher in the run-up to the
>Easter holidays."
>
>"Hedwig didn't return until the end of the Easter holidays." I don't
>know exactly when the Easter holidays are nor how long they are, and
>the time that elapses is uncertain from this point, but
>
>"in the last week of May, Professor McGonagall held [Harry] back in
>Transfiguration" and told him to meet Bagman and the other champions
>on the Quidditch field that night.
>
>So Crouch Sr. doesn't show up until after the Easter holidays, and we
>have further confirmation that he arrives in the last week of May.
>
>Whatever the eagle owl was up to the evening Harry stood alone in the
>Owlery (and I'm sure it was nothing good <g>), it wasn't delivering
>the news that Crouch Sr. had escaped. It was just way too early.
>
>************
>
>Then, I posted a question about why we often assume that the owl was
>carrying a letter to Hogwarts instead of the other way around:
>
>***********
>
>Cindy wrote:
>
>I'm not following you guys. Why are we sure that the eagle owl is
>arriving with a message instead of being sent to deliver a message?
>The text is:
>
>"An eagle owl flew through the coil of smoke rising from Hagrid's
>chimney; it soared toward the castle, around the Owlery, and out of
>sight."
>
>Yes, the owl could have gone into the Owlery or castle after it flew
>out of sight. But if it were delivering a message to someone in the
>castle, wouldn't it deliver the message right away and go straight
>into the castle without the detour around the Owlery? If it were
>going to rest in the Owlery first and then deliver the message in the
>morning, why doesn't it go straight into the Owlery?
>
>If the owl is in fact being sent from the grounds to deliver a
>message, who sent it and what's the message? Hard to say. The
>events right before the appearance of the eagle owl are (working
>backward):
>
>Conversation with Dobby and Winky in the kitchens
>Visit with Sirius in the cave
>Karkaroff showing Snape his Dark Mark in Potions class
>Harry's performance in the Second Task
>
>Is Karkaroff sending an owl to someone about the appearance of the
>dark mark on his arm? Doesn't seem likely. Is Moody sending an owl
>to Voldemort informing him that Harry survived the Second Task?
>That makes some sense, although I am unsure how many days pass
>between the completion of the Second Task and the eagle owl's
>appearance. Can we find a way to implicate Bagman? <vbg>
>
>************
>
>So.  What was that darn eagle owl doing that night?
>
>Cindy (wondering if it is Hagrid's eagle owl, which would make Hagrid
>Ever So Evil)
>
>
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From jenserai at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 15 17:35:06 2002
From: jenserai at hotmail.com (Jenserai Bariman)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:35:06 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Transfiguration, pets, LOLLIPOPS, animal communication,
 acronyms
Message-ID: <F38q12LRF58tP9DLf4b00000d53@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37834


>Tabouli wrote:
>However, mysteriously enough, Sirius makes no mention of Snape cursing them 
>in high school.  Instead, he describes Snape as acting entirely within the 
>rules and snooping around trying to get them expelled.  Perhaps Snape's 
>scared of getting caught and punished, but I somehow suspect Snape would be 
>pretty good at being cunning and underhand and evading punishment.  I think 
>it's more likely there was something else in the equation.  Someone else.  
>Someone who believed in principles and treating people fairly and kindly.
>

Not necissarily. I'm of the opinion that most teachers are at least a little 
biased against Slytherin students (even Dumbledore). I think Severus would 
not have had a chance to be cunning and avoid punishement. They would have 
seen a Slytherin attacking Gryffindors and disciplined him, no questions 
asked.


>Tabouli continued:
Sirius describes Snape as "slimy", a comment which (presumably!) must be 
referring to his behaviour rather than his physical appearance.  Slimy means 
dishonestly flattering.  Why would Sirius, whom Snape loathed at school, 
witness him flattering anyone?  Unless, of course, Sirius is referring to 
Snape's attempts to woo Lily.

I have to disagree here as well. "Slimy" could have easily been in reference 
to his hair, or if it *was* his attitude, Sirius would hhave had plenty of 
chances to notice besides flirting with Lily. What if there was a teacher 
that behaved a bit like Snape back then, favoring the Slytherins? Snape 
could have been a teachers pet, which Sirius would have resented, especially 
if it were a subject he didn't excell in.

-Jens

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr 15 19:25:33 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:25:33 -0000
Subject: Crouch Jr. Imperio timeline, Weatherby, Lucius the DE
In-Reply-To: <a9f4uo+7eoj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9f9fd+he4j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37835

Gwen wrote:
> At first, I thought Crouch may have already had Imperius cast before
> the Quidditch World Cup. <<The timeline is ambiguous>>, although it
> strongly suggests that Voldemort did not make contact until after the
> event. However, it may be possible that he *did* arrange to Imperius
> Barty Sr. before the cup, or else decided he needed to enlist Barty
> Jr. prior to the cup, and perhaps at that time, Crouch is suffering
> from the combinative effects of Imperius and a memory charm.

I don't think the time line is ambiguous at all. IIRC, during Cruch 
jr's Veritaserum-induced ramble to Harry et co, where he explains the 
whole plot, he tells Harry that he had, near the end of his 
imprisonment, been able to throw the Imperius off from time to time on 
his own, but he wasn't compleatly free of it until Wormtail and 
Voldemort paid him a visit, liberated him and Imperioed his father. In 
that same ramble he ALSO tells Harry that the Quidditch World Cup just 
happened to be one of those times when he was able to throw the curse 
off _on his own_ and the first thing he saw was Harry's wand (whithout 
knowing it was him). I haven't been too lucky lately with my 
interpretation of canon (see below), but I think that the ramble 
clearly shows that he wasn't liberated from the Imperio curse until 
AFTER the Quidditch World Cup, so Crouch Sr. should have been he's 
normal self previous to the match (any other interpretations of the 
timeline deduced from the ramble are welcomed).

> If that is so, then at no point in GoF do we see Crouch when he has
> not been the victim of dark spellwork. The confusion over
> Weasley/Weatherby, whether initially magically induced or not,
> however, I think clearly derives from a previous employee's name, and
> the blurring of past and present Crouch suffers under the curse.
> 
> Gwen

Of course, maybe the fact of having a condenmed DE hidden in his tent, 
who just *happened* to be his believed-dead son AND who's only being 
guarded by an elf AND with a plan to taking him out into the open was 
maybe *just* making him a little distracted.

Then again, I still believe my own theory: Crouch Sr. got Percy's name 
wrong the first time, and Percy was to awed at Crouch's authority to 
correct him the first few times (and afterwards, it would have been to 
violent: "Excuse, mr. Crouch, but, even though I've answered to 
"Whetherby" for the last four months, I'm called Weasley, like my 
father. I hope this doesn't make you look like a compleate idiot, Sir")

Betty, Porphyria et al. wrote:
> No, Grey Wolf, you don't remeber; JKR identifies Lucius Malfoy by 
> both name, surname and voice (liberal adaptation of their words)

OK, sorry, it must have fallen from my mind (and I didn't have the 
books handy at the time to look it over). Of course, you're rigth, JKR 
does identify very clearly LM in that chapter. Iwas wondenring, while I 
wrote it, why I was so sure that he was a DE if the proof was so 
circunstantial, but I just though it was my natural distrust for the 
RottenToTheBone!Malfoy family. Anyway, I beg for forgiveness, that was 
sloppy use of canon on my part. I'll try to do it better from now on.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, the canon-based-theories defender (even if he DOES get canon 
wrong himself from time to time)





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr 15 21:08:23 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:08:23 -0000
Subject: Crouch Jr's imperius timeline, Weatherby, Lucius the DE
In-Reply-To: <a9f4uo+7eoj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9ffg7+2g1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37836

Note: this is a re-post. Yahoo is a little bit on the strange side 
today, and one of my posts seems to have vanished. I didn't make a 
copy, so I just rewrote it. Please excuse me if a very similar post 
appears toghether with this one.

Gwend wrote:
> At first, I thought Crouch may have already had Imperius cast before
> the Quidditch World Cup. <<The timeline is ambiguous>>, although it
> strongly suggests that Voldemort did not make contact until after the
> event. However, it may be possible that he *did* arrange to Imperius
> Barty Sr. before the cup, or else decided he needed to enlist Barty
> Jr. prior to the cup, and perhaps at that time, Crouch is suffering
> from the combinative effects of Imperius and a memory charm.

I don't think the timeline is ambiguous at all. Let's take a look at 
canon: IIRC, during the long Veritaserum-induced rant Crouch Jr. makes 
at the end of GoF, he tells Harry and co that he had been able to throw 
off the Imperius on his own a few times before being liberated by 
Voldemort and Wormtail's visit to his father's house, but it wasn't 
until that visit that he's totally liberated, at the same time that his 
father is Imperioed. During that same rant Crouch explains that one of 
those times when he was able to throw off the Imperius *own his own* 
was during the Quidditch World Cup (he wakes up and sees Harry's wand, 
which he promptly steals, without knowing who the young boy is). Since 
he's liberated from the Imperius by Voldemort, and during the match he 
was still under an Imperius, it can be deduced that Crouch Sr. wasn't 
Imperioed until AFTER the Quidditch World Cup.
 
> If that is so, then at no point in GoF do we see Crouch when he has
> not been the victim of dark spellwork. The confusion over
> Weasley/Weatherby, whether initially magically induced or not,
> however, I think clearly derives from a previous employee's name, and
> the blurring of past and present Crouch suffers under the curse.
> 
> Gwen

Well, if my canon interpretation is correct, we do see Crouch as he 
normally was during the visit to the Weasley's tent before the match 
(however, my last tries of interpreting canon have been quite a 
disaster [See below], so I'm willing to hear other views on the 
timeline). However, the fact that Crouch, at that time, was hiding a 
condemned DE inside his tent who just happened to be his believed-dead 
estrangled son, who was under the guard of a single house-elf and, to 
make things worse, who was going to be taken out into the open in a few 
hours was, maybe, *just* making Crouch Sr. to become a little unhinged 
and definetely nervous.

On the other hand, I prefer my own theory to explain the Wetherby 
syndrom: Couch got Percy's name wrong the first time and Percy was to 
awed by his authority to correct him at the time, and when a few weeks 
had passed, the situation was too violent for Percy to do anything 
about it ("Excuse me, Mr. Crouch, but even though I've been answering 
to Wetherby, my name is *Weasley*, like my father, Arthur, from the 
Muggle department. I hope this does *not* make you look too much of an 
idiot, sir").

Porphyria, Betty et al. wrote:
> "Grey Wolf, you're wrong on the Lucius matter: JKR identifies him by
> name, surname and voice during the chapter" (liberal adaptation of
> their words)

Yes, I realised that, and I'm sorry. I had wondered why I was so sure 
that Lucius was guilty, but I just laid it down to my belief of the 
RottenToTheCore!Malfoys theory. When I wrote that posts my books were 
unavailable, so I shouldn't have expressed it as if taken directly from 
canon. I'm sorry, and I will try not to trip with the same stone a 
second time.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, a canon-based-theories defender (even if he does got canon 
wrong at times himself).





From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 15 22:15:00 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:15:00 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grins/tears and favorite bits(was: Re: Variations of
 Favourite Bits)
Message-ID: <F229NebT9s4ddqN19bB00017b3c@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37837

Marina wrote:
>Being a basically decent guy, Sirius feels bad about
>it (hence his telling Ron to lie down -- it really was an attempt at
>kindness); but being rather unhinged at the time, he quickly swings
>back to his original vengeful mindset.

Guilt sounds good. Keep in mind Sirius has been in prison for 12 years, and 
his people skills probably aren't up to par. :D

Liz (who is glad spring has finally come to Iowa!)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From cmf_usc at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 22:29:47 2002
From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:29:47 -0000
Subject: Harry's new pet?
Message-ID: <a9fk8r+jg3v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37838

All this talk about pets reminded me of this quote from a JKR 
interview: 

Could Harry have a pet dragon? 
You can't domesticate a dragon whatever Hagrid thinks. That's simply 
impossible. So no. He's got more sense. He might get a different pet 
at some point but I'm saying no more at this moment. 

http://www.hpgalleries.com/vaults/c129.htm
************************************************

I haven't read Fantastic Beasts *squirms guiltly* so I was wondering 
if ya'll had ideas about what types of pets might be particularly 
useful to Harry?

Or--(gasp) do you think he'll need a new owl because something 
happens to Hedwig?  I imagine being Harry's owl is quite a dangerous 
job...

Caroline
(who would gladly mark Hagrid as a goner if it would save Hedwig)






From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 15 22:25:57 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:25:57 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's break from Lucius (Was Re: Draco's redemption)
Message-ID: <F141sxvpNpMb9hRNiBf000181aa@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37839

Uncmark wrote:
>Imagine if at some point Neville or Ginny saves Draco. Would Draco
>owe some life sebt to them?

That he would. He would be in a wizard's life debt, Peter is in Harry's 
debt. I'm unclear of the conditions of a debt of that sort in the wizarding 
world but it is my *speculation* that it binds the two people magically. 
But, like I said, that's just speculation.

Of course, if this does indeed happen and Redeemed!Draco hasn't taken place, 
he might try and ignore it. Whingy git.

As I've said before, if Draco can open his eyes a little wider and see 
what's beyond his pointy little nose; and realize that *maybe* his dad is 
wrong about something, he should be okay.

Liz (who's afraid that was a bit of a run-on sentence)

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From melodylemming at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 15 22:25:57 2002
From: melodylemming at hotmail.com (Melody B.)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:25:57 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Flicker
Message-ID: <F50RN9WBYShdmhznOxb00002989@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37840

Kimberly wrote:
>"Something flickered in Black's shadowed eyes.  "Lie down," he said
>quietly to Ron. "You will damage that leg even more."

>I have to wonder about the flickering in Black's eyes.
>That interests me at least as much as Dumbledore's gleam of triumph.
>What does the flicker mean?  At first I sort of felt like it was a
>flicker of recogniton of a kindred spirit - someone else who would
>not hesitate to die for his friends, and for Harry in particular, but
>if that's what it was, then his response, first <<<<"Lie down," he
>said quietly to Ron. "You will damage that leg even more.">>>> and
>then <<<<"There'll be only one murder here tonight," said Black, and
>his grin widened.>>>> doesn't seem to follow from it.  The lie down
>bit, maybe, is an attempt at kindness, but it doesn't seem much like
>it since he then goes about grinning frighteningly about murder with
>no explanation.
>
>So anybody else got any ideas about the flicker?
>

I always thought he was remembering his friends, and how they felt about 
each other, but now that you point it out that doesn't entirely make sense.

Maybe he's worried -- afraid even? -- of Ron, just for a moment, and then 
his recklessness comes back. He seems to be a little hysterical, and I 
wouldn't be surprised if he was kind of crazy from all his years in Azkaban. 
A angry teenager might be able to throw him off his gaurd for a moment.

Melody


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.





From melodylemming at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 15 22:48:49 2002
From: melodylemming at hotmail.com (Melody B.)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:48:49 -0400
Subject: Weatherby
Message-ID: <F793AkTR60oVexDAeys0000c56b@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37841

Gwen wrote:
>However, the next time Crouch mentions the name Weatherby, it's in
>conjunction with a much older memory:
>
>3. "Thank you, Weatherby, and when you have done that, I would like a
>cup of tea. My wife and son will be arriving shortly, we are attending
>a concert tonight with Mr and Mrs Fudge."
>
>Crouch's next statement is to brag about Jr.'s 12 O.W.L.'s, and though
>it's not clearly indicated, I believe it to be a continuation of the
>remembered conversation, much as his second statement is a
>continuation of the list of instructions he gave Percy. So these
>clearly refer to a time before Crouch Jr.'s imprisonment.
>
>We learn later that Crouch has been fighting the Imperius Curse at
>least since the beginning of the year, and that his confusion was
>almost certainly a side effect of the mental energy of breaking the
>curse--the effort drives him mad.
>
>This is the same struggle going on in Crouch in chapter 17, when he
>refuses Dumbledore's offers to stay the night, and calls Percy
>"Weatherby" again.
>
>I believe that "Weatherby" is actually the name of a *former*
>assistant of Crouch's, perhaps one who was a lot like Percy. I think
>it's this similarity that reminds Crouch of Weatherby when he thinks
>of Percy--and that lends to his confusion after the Curse is placed on
>him.
>

It makes sense that Weatherby would be a former employee -- I beleive that 
when I first read that bit, I assumed Crouch was getting mixed up because he 
was delerious, but what you say makes more sense.

>At first, I thought Crouch may have already had Imperius cast before
>the Quidditch World Cup. The timeline is ambiguous, although it
>strongly suggests that Voldemort did not make contact until after the
>event. However, it may be possible that he *did* arrange to Imperius
>Barty Sr. before the cup, or else decided he needed to enlist Barty
>Jr. prior to the cup, and perhaps at that time, Crouch is suffering
>from the combinative effects of Imperius and a memory charm.
>
>If that is so, then at no point in GoF do we see Crouch when he has
>not been the victim of dark spellwork. The confusion over
>Weasley/Weatherby, whether initially magically induced or not,
>however, I think clearly derives from a previous employee's name, and
>the blurring of past and present Crouch suffers under the curse.

Chapter One definitely takes place before the Quidditch Cup, unless Harry is 
having dreams of the future, but it would make more sense if the 
conversation between Voldemort and Wormtail took place after they'd seen 
Crouch Jr.

The conversation in chapter one seems to indicate that Voldemort has seen 
the younger Crouch already, but from what Barty Crouch says in chapter 35, 
Voldemort didn't come to see him until after the Quidditch cup.

Barty also says in chapter 35 that he had been fighting the Imperius Curse 
for some time, and was able to hold it off. Might this cause further strain 
on Crouch Sr.?

Melody

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx





From porphyria at mindspring.com  Mon Apr 15 23:44:32 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:44:32 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Slytherin; various redemptions
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1018914272.0.34202700@webmail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37842

I suggested a redemption scenario for Crabbe and Marina replied:

> I don't know about Crabbe or Goyle, but I would certainly like to see
> *some* Slytherin haul him/herself into Snape's office and say
> something along those lines? 

Well, I was being a little tongue-in-cheek when I said that, but joking aside, the point I was trying to make was that it would be interesting if someone *other than* Draco wound up being the redeemed one, especially someone whom we've only been invited to see as semi-human up until now. It would be a welcome twist. Why Crabbe, Eloise asks? Well, Crabbe is the one who rushes in front of False!Moody's wand to try to scoop up his ferret-transfigured friend, and that takes some strength of character. I'm slowly coming around to feeling sympathy for both Crabbe and Goyle since they are so loyal to Draco, and what thanks do they get for it? If the Polyjuice scene in CoS is any indication, they are rewarded with condescension, bullying and insults from dear Malfoy fils. Plus their Dads are just as hulking and cretinous as they are (apparently) and it just seems a shame that both of them would be condemned to mindlessly follow in their fathers' footsteps. At least one of them really !
ought to break type. 

Abigail went on to worry:

> Actually, I've been wondering if that isn't going to be a problem for Snape 
> in the coming books.  If Snape has indeed gone back to spy on Voldemort, 
> he has to maintain the appearance of being a secret Death Eater - there 
> are too many children of DEs in Slytherin house to allow him to show 
> sympathy for Dumbledore's side without jeopardizing his cover. 

I do agree with both you and Marina that it is, or should be, his job to cough up some decent advice for any student-at-risk asking him for it. Assuming he is going to be spying in future books, I think the only way he could help someone would be to swear to secrecy about it. He might even be able hiss something at them to the effect that conversations in his office would never go any further than those walls, and if he said it in a sinister enough way the DE-sympathizers would think he meant them, and the DE-opposition might think he meant them too. Of course he'd have to suss out whether one of them was only pretending to turn against LV in order to suss out Snape's loyalties in turn, but he's perfectly capable of doing that. That's his specialty. 

OTOH, Abigail said:

> I don't happen to be one of the people who believe that Snape secretly 
> hates Draco or that he's trying to weaken the next generation of DE by 
> being soft on the Slytherins. 

Since I've argued just this myself in the past, for the sake of consistency I'll add that I don't see any evidence that he's doing anything *other than* weakening them, whether he means to or not. You all have made me feel very guilty about imagining that Snape intends harm to his own house, but redemption-speculation aside, they do get more hopeless every year, don't they? Meanwhile Harry is the one throwing off Imperius Curses and standing down Voldemort in duels. This takes strength of will, and practice at standing up to antagonism. I'd like to see Draco attempt something like that. 

On the subject of the Malfoys, UNCMark says of Draco:

> Oh? Consider his devotion of his mother.
<...>
> What I can reasonably assume about Narcissa, is that Draco has a 
> devotion to her and she has the same for Draco.

You know, I have high hopes for Narcissa being the Malfoy wildcard. I'd say she's already Not All Bad. The fact that she's sending Draco care packages on a regular basis, Eagle-Owl-of-Death or not, is something we'd consider very sweet if it were somebody else's mother. And I always wonder about her reluctance to send Draco to Durmstrang. If your child is going to a boarding school, what difference does it really make whether it's in Scotland or Scandinavia? Especially with magical transportation! He's gone most of the year, and even on holidays sometimes. Actually, worrying about her little dear being gone so far away is kind of sweet in itself, but I wonder if that's some kind of clue that she's really not totally comfortable with Draco having unimpeded exposure to the Dark Arts. Maybe she'll be the one to rebel against her husband's evil ways?

Then again, Dobby refers to how evil his "masters" (pl) are. Do you think he means just Lucius and Draco, or the whole family? And of course it's unclear whether Narcissa took part in the QWC riot (But she seems too uptight for that! She might break a nail!) or showed up at the graveyard. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt. 

However, Uncmark, I kind of hope that LV doesn't go around Crucio'ing DE family members left and right. That's kind of a dumb Evil Villain move; it doesn't do much for loyalty. Of course LV tends to forget the Evil Villain pitfalls, doesn't he....

Abigail also asks:

> ...what makes Sirius so reluctant to believe that Snape was a DE?  Is it just 
> because Dumbledore trusts him?

I didn't get the impression that he was reluctant to believe Snape was a DE; he was just pointing out that Snape had never been *accused* of it, while the other five were. Sirius can't understand why Dumbledore would hire a former DE, but I don't think he feels this way in defense of Snape; he just can't see why a former torturer-murderer would be allowed to teach little kids. 

Silly Sirius.

~~Unredeemed!Porphyria



From melodylemming at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 15 22:14:08 2002
From: melodylemming at hotmail.com (Melody B.)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:14:08 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1804
Message-ID: <F179iGGfzHf6jRG9Ejt000000b2@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37843

LizGiz wrote:
>Is this evidence that Draco himself is in contact
>with Voldemort?  Or do you suppose that all Death
>Eaters have eagle owls?
>

I doubt that Draco, a fourteen year-old student, would be corresponding with 
Voldemort, but it might have some relation to his family. What I mean to say 
is that sometimes families have a traditional pet, and this could mean that 
Lucius Malfoy is in league with Voldemort.

Eagle owls could also just be an aristocratic pet to have, the kind of owl 
all the old pureblood families own.

On the other hand, it's not hard to see a connection between Eagle owls and 
Death Eaters if you're looking for one, (but then, it's easy to see 
connections between anything if you're looking for them) I don't know much 
about owls, but eagles are predators -- as are owls -- and it makes sense 
that the villain would have a very predatory pet.

Melody

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.





From genevieve373 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 15 21:25:53 2002
From: genevieve373 at yahoo.com (genevieve373)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:25:53 -0000
Subject: Sirius' Flickering Eyes  (was: Grins/tears and favorite bits)
In-Reply-To: <a9f63h+t3vc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9fgh1+3osg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37844

> moongirlk wrote:
> 
> > "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too!" he said
> > fiercely, though the effort of standing upright was draining him 
of
> > still more color, and he swayed slightly as he spoke.
> > 
> > Something flickered in Black's shadowed eyes.  "Lie down," he 
said 
> > quietly to Ron. "You will damage that leg even more."
> > 
> > "Did you hear me?" Ron said weakly, though he was clinging 
painfully 
> > to Harry to stay upright. "You'll have to kill all three of 
us!">>>>
> > 
> >             --------------------------------------
> > What does the flicker mean?  

And Marina responded:
> I think it was guilt.  When Ron stood up and spoke like that, Sirius
> was finally forced to see him not as an anonymous obstacle between
> himself and Wormtail, but as a person -- a really good and loyal
> person whom Sirius, in his single-minded pursuit of vengeance, has
> badly injured.  Being a basically decent guy, Sirius feels bad about
> it 


This is a very definite possibility.  My first impression, however, 
was that the flicker in Sirius' eyes was nostalgia.  Maybe at some 
point in his youth, Sirius said something similar in defending James, 
or James stood up for Sirius.  He recognizes the deep sense of 
loyalty between Ron, Harry, and Hermione and is (probably bitterly, 
since I believe he still thinks Lupin is the traitor) reminded of his 
friendship with James and Remus, and maybe Peter.

BTW, this is my first post...I am so impressed and overwhelmed with 
all of the discussions going on, I had no idea where to start!  
(Thanks to Tabouli's TOADKEEPER, I'll never look at Neville and his 
pet in the same way again!) Hope this bit of input is ok.

Jennifer





From dicentra at xmission.com  Mon Apr 15 23:56:56 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:56:56 -0000
Subject: The Sirius Flicker
In-Reply-To: <a9f63h+t3vc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9fpc8+mf57@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37845

Moongirl quotes:
> > "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too!" he said
> > fiercely, though the effort of standing upright was draining him of
> > still more color, and he swayed slightly as he spoke.
> > 
> > Something flickered in Black's shadowed eyes.  "Lie down," he said 
> > quietly to Ron. "You will damage that leg even more."
> > 
> > "Did you hear me?" Ron said weakly, though he was clinging painfully 
> > to Harry to stay upright. "You'll have to kill all three of us!">>>>
> > 
Then Moongirl comments:
I have to wonder about the flickering in Black's eyes.  
> > That interests me at least as much as Dumbledore's gleam of
> triumph.  
> > What does the flicker mean?  
> 
Then Marina answers:
> I think it was guilt.  When Ron stood up and spoke like that, Sirius
> was finally forced to see him not as an anonymous obstacle between
> himself and Wormtail, but as a person -- a really good and loyal
> person whom Sirius, in his single-minded pursuit of vengeance, has
> badly injured.  Being a basically decent guy, Sirius feels bad about
> it (hence his telling Ron to lie down -- it really was an attempt at
> kindness); but being rather unhinged at the time, he quickly swings
> back to his original vengeful mindset.
> 
And Dicentra butts in:

Guilt is no doubt part of it--recognizing that he broke Ron's leg
(although Padfoot broke the leg--I don't think Sirius realized it
until he became a man again).  And it's a clue to us readers that
there is some humanity in Sirius that we didn't expect at this point.

But Sirius has been after Peter since he escaped. I doubt it has
occurred to him that people thought he was after Harry. HE certainly
knew he wasn't going to hurt Harry.  Part of the flicker might have
been a kind of double-take.  "Harry?  Who said anything about killing
Harry?  Now sit down or you'll make your leg worse." 

I read the Shrieking Shack chapters again, a few weeks ago, and
strangely enough, Sirius didn't seem all that unhinged to me. He does
grab Harry's throat to push him off, but at that point, who's more
unhinged? Harry is. It might have been that grabbing Harry's larynx
was all Sirius could do to make him stop. Regardless of what the
narrator says, I'll bet Harry was stronger than Sirius at that point,
so Sirius had to go for Harry's soft spot. Not enough to kill him or
anything. Just make it hurt enough so he'll get off.

And when he lunges at Scabbers, it seemed logical to do so, given that
Lupin was determined to stall while he explained everything. Maybe
Sirius knew Lupin had a habit of having to get all the I's dotted and
T's crossed before making any big moves. Actually, it DOES make more
sense to finish off Peter before launching into any explanations. I
can't see why any *sane* person in Sirius's situation would want to
wait for Lupin and his backstory machine to wind down.

For that matter, as much as I love the Shrieking Shack scene, it
REALLY bugs me that the pace is so slow and cluttered with
explanations. When Lupin insists that they have to explain first, act
second, I thought "no, it's that the author wants to fill us in on
Something Vitally Important right now, so we're going to suspend the
action even though we really don't have to." JKR does a reasonably
good job of keeping the pace up, what with Snape Showing Up At The
Worst Possible Moment and other interruptions, but I keep thinking
that when they translate this scene to celluloid they're going to have
to change from Lupin yakking to actual flashbacks or something.
Otherwise, it will get mighty slow.

--Dicentra, who can't believe she just slammed her favorite HP scene  





From fordpr1020 at aol.com  Tue Apr 16 00:21:34 2002
From: fordpr1020 at aol.com (thefortressiserlohn)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:21:34 -0000
Subject: Zen and the Art of Getting A's
Message-ID: <a9fqqe+3jsh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37846

This will prolly be my last post for a while, but first...

While making dinner tonight an interesting thought came to my head: 
What if magic in the wizarding world was one of the Zen arts?  This 
would certainly explain a number of things in the books, especially 
with the development of students in their classes.  (Sorry if this 
has been covered in another post, I searched the archives and found 
nothing similar to this)

For those who are unaware of what I am talking about, check the 
book "Zen and the Art of Archery" by Eugene Herigel (I think I 
spelled that right...)  It is the story of a man learning Japanese 
stile archery through Zen.

So how does this relate to Potter?

The way I see it, some of the professors in the Potterverse aren't 
really teachers so much as Zen Masters.  They provide an example of 
what to do and occasionally coach the students, but when push comes 
to shove they can't do it all.

For an example of this, let us look in PS/SS at the class on 
Halloween when everyone is learning Wingardium Leviosa.  This is the 
first time that the class is performing a true charm.  We've got 
about two months of action before this happens.  What happens in 
ZATAOA is that before Herrigel began learning how to shoot properly, 
he first has to learn things like how to draw an arrow, how to 
breathe, and most importantly how to wait and not get frustrated when 
his shots miss.

In Charms, (as well as Transfiguration probably) I would imagine that 
a similar approach is taken.  First the students are probably taught 
how to handle their wands.  Secondly they learn how to relax when 
holding them, and probably an introductory lesson about the counter-
effects of frustration on the Wizard in question.

Finally it is time for the students to perform.  While Flitwick has 
no doubt repeatedly shown them how to perform the Wingardium Leviosa 
spell himself, he can not do the spell for them.  Those who have 
learned how to relax and get into the feeling (like Hermione) will 
succeed.  Those who get frustrated (like Ron) or are scared of 
failing (like Neville) will not be able to perform the charm.  
Everybody works at a different pace in this sort of environment 
(similar to archery), hence the reason some students can pick up on 
this sort of thing quickly while others tend to lag.  I would not be 
surprised to see Neville still have problems with first year Charms 
if he is still unable to get into the mindset of Zen.  The charm will 
only work when it freely leaves the wand, much like the arrow must 
loose itself from the bow.

The same thing holds true for Transfiguration, as well as probably 
for Divination.  They both require the ability to let the spell 
(probably a misnomer...) come to you and release itself rather than 
the Wizard bringing it forth on their own.  More than likely, first 
year Charms and Transfiguration were more about getting into the 
proper magic-producing mindset than actually learning actual charms 
or transfiguring techniques (has Harry need a new transfiguration 
book yet?).  After all, it took Herrigel six years to learn Archery, 
magic must be at least that complicated, but for the sake of this a)
being fiction and b)children who learn much faster than 50 year olds, 
1 year seems about accurate.

Potions and Astronomy as we know them are exempt from this - those 
closely resemble traditional Muggle subjects.

I hope someone has been able to make sense out of this.

*back to delurking for a LONG period of time*

--jc




From j-lipton at nwu.edu  Mon Apr 15 23:42:42 2002
From: j-lipton at nwu.edu (Jamie Lipton)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:42:42 -0500
Subject: Sirius Black's math mistake?
Message-ID: <031701c1e4d7$3c6d9280$03fea8c0@death-computer>

No: HPFGUIDX 37847

Facts:  If Harry was born in July, 1980, then Voldemort was defeated in
October, 1981.  Sirius Black went to Azkaban in November, 1981.  Sirius
escapes in July, 1993, and the scene in the Shrieking Shack takes place in
June, 1994.

This means that Sirius was in Azkaban for 12 years, and he verifies this
himself: "'I've waited twelve years, I'm not going to wait much longer.'"
(PoA, hardcover American, p. 352)

Question:  When Sirius speaks to Peter (p. 370) he says, "Voldemort's been
in hiding for fifteen years, they say he's half dead."  As far as I can
tell, Voldemort can only have been in hiding for twelve to thirteen years,
if the infant Harry defeated him on Halloween, 1981.  It may be just a rough
estimation on Sirius's part, but why would he be so unspecific when he
clearly knows exactly how many years he spent in prison?
That being said, is Sirius just really bad at math?  Or does he know
something that we don't?

- Jamie





From jferer at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 16 01:26:42 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:26:42 -0000
Subject: Sirius Black's math mistake?
In-Reply-To: <031701c1e4d7$3c6d9280$03fea8c0@death-computer>
Message-ID: <a9fuki+8m4m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37848

Jamie:"When Sirius speaks to Peter (p. 370) he says, 
"Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years, they say he's half 
dead."  As far as I can tell, Voldemort can only have been in hiding 
for twelve to thirteen years, if the infant Harry defeated him on 
Halloween, 1981.  It may be just a rough estimation on Sirius's part, 
but why would he be so unspecific when he  clearly knows exactly how 
many years he spent in prison?"

It doesn't seem likely, but it may be that Sirius is counting some 
time before Voldemort was defeated as being "in hiding." The obvious 
objection to that is that Voldemort was at his most powerful before he 
came calling at Godric's Hollow.  Otherwise, I don't see an 
explanation.




From jferer at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 16 01:42:12 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:42:12 -0000
Subject: Draco's break from Lucius (Was Re: Draco's redemption)
In-Reply-To: <F141sxvpNpMb9hRNiBf000181aa@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9fvhk+276l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37849

Liz:"As I've said before, if Draco can open his eyes a little wider 
and see what's beyond his pointy little nose; and realize that *maybe* 
his dad is wrong about something, he should be okay."

What's going to do that, though? Uncmark is on to the only thing that 
might turn Draco around. Little Draco is going to have to get some 
blood splattered onto his own robes. Daddy Lucius giving him a good 
taste of what *evil* really is might be the only chance Draco gets. 
Don't hold your breath.




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Apr 16 02:01:07 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:01:07 -0000
Subject: The Mysterious Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
In-Reply-To: <F257FEygjsuVxpwaknH0000ef4e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9g0l3+7b34@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37850

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Sandi Steinberg" <sandirs at h...> wrote:
>
> >So.  What was that darn eagle owl doing that night?

There was a subplot going on, other than Moody/Crouch's 
shenannigans.

There was Rita Skeeter, and the Trio wondering how she got
her info.  I think we can assume that the eagle-owl is Maalfoy's.
Nobody else to this point has one, and Draco is at least associated
with one. I wonder if  Draco had used it to send Rita a fresh load
and it was flying back to Draco with the instruction to look for a 
beetle.


Tex





From boggles at earthlink.net  Tue Apr 16 02:14:11 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:14:11 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Slytherin; various redemptions
In-Reply-To:  <Springmail.0994.1018914272.0.34202700@webmail.atl.earthlink.net>
References:  <Springmail.0994.1018914272.0.34202700@webmail.atl.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <p05010407b8e13859a6ab@[66.32.51.41]>

No: HPFGUIDX 37851

At 7:44 PM -0400 4/15/02, <porphyria at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I'm slowly coming around to feeling sympathy for both Crabbe and 
>Goyle since they are so loyal to Draco, and what thanks do they get 
>for it? <snip> and it just seems a shame that both of them would be 
>condemned to mindlessly follow in their fathers' footsteps. At least 
>one of them really !
>ought to break type.

Wouldn't that require them to have actual lines, though?  I believe 
the only time we hear actual words, as opposed to yells and grunts, 
coming from them is when they're really Ron and Harry, Polyjuiced. 
Rita Skeeter quotes them about the Skrewts, but given her 
Quick-Quoting Quill, she might well have gotten that from the usual 
grunts.  (If I'm wrong, someone flag me on this.  I'd hate to think 
the two kids who got their roles are doomed to seven movies with no 
dialogue!)

-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!



From mdemeran at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 16 02:15:19 2002
From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:15:19 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius Black's math mistake?/ Flickering
References: <031701c1e4d7$3c6d9280$03fea8c0@death-computer>
Message-ID: <OE5524ABvWZ0HHc1ORq0001a8e5@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37852

Jamie wrote: "Question:  When Sirius speaks to Peter (p. 370) he says, "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years, they say he's half dead."  As far as I can tell, Voldemort can only have been in hiding for twelve to thirteen years, if the infant Harry defeated him on Halloween, 1981.  It may be just a rough estimation on Sirius's part, but why would he be so unspecific when he clearly knows exactly how many years he spent in prison? That being said, is Sirius just really bad at math?  Or does he know something that we don't?"

Me:
Perhaps Voldermort whereabouts where unknown for his last few years. Everyone knew he was out there, but he allowed his Death Eaters to perform the actual terror. One can't be captured if one is in hiding. In some ways that would make him seem almost worse since no one who could defeat him would be able to find him. If you can't see your enemy, natural fears can take over and make the situation seem much worse than it is. It is the unknown that scares us the most. This would explain his name change as well. He would have become a faceless enemy, no one would associate popular Tom Riddle of these horrible actions of a mad man.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the flicker:
Kimberly wrote " (snip quote from book) Something flickered in Black's shadowed eyes.  "Lie down," he said quietly to Ron. "You will damage that leg even more. (snip) I have to wonder about the flickering in Black's eyes. That interests me at least as much as Dumbledore's gleam of triumph.  What does the flicker mean?"

Me:
I have always taken that flicker in two ways. First, I think that it is recognition of the pain that Ron is in. "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too!" he said fiercely, though the effort of standing upright was draining him of still more color, and he swayed slightly as he spoke." Ron is in obvious agony at this point and I think Sirius could see what he had done (and hopefully had some remorse for it). Second, I think it shows his recognition that Ron is the same kind of friend to Harry that Sirius was to James. Ron is standing up to someone that he should fear greatly to protect his best friend. Sirius knows he would have done the same thing. I think it is a humanizing moment for Sirius. He realizes just what he has done in his efforts. In trying to get Peter and protect Harry, he has physically hurt Harry's best friend and terrified them all. In his own way, he tries to correct what he has done. The flicker in his eyes is his realization of how far afield he has gone in his actual goal of protecting Harry.

At least that's what I make of all of it.

Meg (still trying to get motivated enough to study Biochemistry)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From birdy739 at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 16 02:29:03 2002
From: birdy739 at hotmail.com (Kelly Shiflet)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:29:03 -0400
Subject: Info Update on 5th book
Message-ID: <F223A6laOlsi4tiDnE4000136c5@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37853

Hi everybody, I'm usually a lurker, but have post a few times before.
Cutting to the chase, I work in a little bookstore in Louisville, Kentucky. 
In doing so I pulled a few strings and got in contact with a publisher, 
asking them, of course, *WHEN'S THE NEXT HP BOOK COMING OUT?!?*. Well, their 
reply was that it probably wouldn't even be out until 2003 (though I don't 
know any specific dates). <ducts the hexs sent my way>
Don't curse the middleman!
Anyways, I thought I'd share that bit of info with the viewers out in HP 
land.
Kelly



          . * .  (\ *** /)  . * .
          * . * (  \(_)/  ) * . *
          . * .  (_/| |\_) . * .
           * . *  /_____\ * . *


_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From landers at email.unc.edu  Tue Apr 16 02:29:55 2002
From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:29:55 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius Black's math mistake?
References: <a9fuki+8m4m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CBB8CA3.84EA16D@email.unc.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 37854

People ten dto use round figures in conversation.  That's all I can
guess.  Sorry for the 1-liner, yall.

jferer wrote:
> 
> Jamie:"When Sirius speaks to Peter (p. 370) he says,
> "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years, they say he's half
> dead."  As far as I can tell, Voldemort can only have been in hiding
> for twelve to thirteen years, if the infant Harry defeated him on
> Halloween, 1981.  It may be just a rough estimation on Sirius's part,
> but why would he be so unspecific when he  clearly knows exactly how
> many years he spent in prison?"
> 
> It doesn't seem likely, but it may be that Sirius is counting some
> time before Voldemort was defeated as being "in hiding." The obvious
> objection to that is that Voldemort was at his most powerful before he
> came calling at Godric's Hollow.  Otherwise, I don't see an
> explanation.
> 
> 
> ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________
> 
> Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
> http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin
> 
> Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!
> 
> Is your message...
> An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
> Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
> Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
> None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
> Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com
> 
> Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> ____________________________________________________________
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From spottydog at worldnet.att.net  Tue Apr 16 04:26:39 2002
From: spottydog at worldnet.att.net (CARRIE MUNGAI)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:26:39 -0700
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <001401c1e4fe$e9fbbd60$17a3520c@s0023817978>

No: HPFGUIDX 37855

NO!!!!! Say it isn't so!
Spottydog
Hi everybody, I'm usually a lurker, but have post a few times before.
> Cutting to the chase, I work in a little bookstore in Louisville, Kentucky. 
> In doing so I pulled a few strings and got in contact with a publisher, 
> asking them, of course, *WHEN'S THE NEXT HP BOOK COMING OUT?!?*. Well, their 
> reply was that it probably wouldn't even be out until 2003 (though I don't 
> know any specific dates). <ducts the hexs sent my way>
> Don't curse the middleman!
> Anyways, I thought I'd share that bit of info with the viewers out in HP 
> land.
> Kelly



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gohana_chan03 at lycos.com  Tue Apr 16 03:31:40 2002
From: gohana_chan03 at lycos.com (Hana )
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:31:40 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's break from Lucius (Was Re: Draco's redemption)
Message-ID: <NEHFHCNJJKPBECAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37856

Hi, I'm both new, and a lurker, but I thought I'd put my two cents in here.

Liz:"As I've said before, if Draco can open his eyes a little wider 
and see what's beyond his pointy little nose; and realize that *maybe* 
his dad is wrong about something, he should be okay."

jferer:What's going to do that, though? Uncmark is on to the only thing that might turn Draco around. Little Draco is going to have to get some blood splattered onto his own robes. Daddy Lucius giving him a good taste of what *evil* really is might be the only chance Draco gets. Don't hold your breath.


I think it's possible for Draco to do something similar to what Snape did -- get marked, join Voldemort and grow to seriously regret his decision.  
He seems to be someone on a power trip, but he never seems to do anything too cruel or harsh -- he mostly sticks to insults and slander rather than physically harming anyone (calling Hermione a Mudblood, slandering people to Rita Skeeter etc)  I don't honestly see him coping well with the amount of cruelty and evil that the Death Eaters live with and enjoy.  He's a bully not a sadist.
If he ever becomes a Death Eater I always see him as being a boot-licker who will do anything to avoid being cursed rather than a serious player in the war.
I could be wrong of course, but that's my impression of him.  

---
--Hana
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high 
and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."  Michelangelo 

Words to live by "Semper ubi sub ubi" 
(::grins:: always wear under wear)




See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 16 04:30:59 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 04:30:59 -0000
Subject: Harry's new pet?
In-Reply-To: <a9fk8r+jg3v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9g9e3+js5h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37857

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cmf_usc" <cmf_usc at y...> wrote:
> All this talk about pets reminded me of this quote from a JKR 
> interview: 
> 
> Could Harry have a pet dragon? 
> You can't domesticate a dragon whatever Hagrid thinks. That's 
> simply impossible. So no. He's got more sense. He might get a 
> different pet at some point but I'm saying no more at this moment. 
> 
> http://www.hpgalleries.com/vaults/c129.htm
> ************************************************
> 
> I haven't read Fantastic Beasts *squirms guiltly* so I was 
> wondering if ya'll had ideas about what types of pets might be 
> particularly useful to Harry?
> 
> Or--(gasp) do you think he'll need a new owl because something 
> happens to Hedwig?  I imagine being Harry's owl is quite a 
> dangerous job...

>From the interview with JKR at the above link:

---
Which is your favourite beast? 
(JKR)I would most like to have a phoenix if I could choose. 

Why's that? 
(JKR)They have all sorts of interesting properties, which I would 
like. They're also very beautiful-not that I've ever seen one, 
they're very shy. Yes I'd like a phoenix most. 
---

And what is the name of the next book?  

Could you see Harry coming out of a great battle either inheriting 
Fawkes or more intriguing Fawkes gives Harry an egg (We don't know 
Fawkes is male or female.)

BTW a lot of people have more than one pet. Hedwig does not 
necessarilly have to die for Harry to get a new pet.

Uncmark




From catlady at wicca.net  Tue Apr 16 06:12:36 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 06:12:36 -0000
Subject: Lots of Sevvie / Harry's new pet
Message-ID: <a9gfck+7iss@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37858

The good captain Tabouli wrote:

<< the Captain turns a baleful eye onto the Catlady, who appears to 
have the impression that Snape would have had to fall in love with 
Lily at 11. She shakes her head firmly, and sits the Catlady down for 
a stern word. >>

Actually, I'm a feline stowaway on SS LOLLIPOPS; I was very much 
touched by the good captain's kindness in fixing up a nice ELF TABBY 
sleeping basket for me in the corner of the sitting room of the 
FLIRTIAC suite, but I don't believe in either LOLLIPOPS or FLIRTIAC. 
Strolling arrogantly down the gangway with my tail elegantly waving, 
as if leaving were entirely my own idea, I meow an explanation that I 
don't believe in Severus/Lily, even tho' it would tidily explain 
almost all the plot, because I am quite convinced that Severus is gay 
(and *suffering* from internalized homophobia). Not interested in 
marrying Lily OR Florence Norris Filch. Btw look how he choked down a 
laugh over Filch's hysteria when Mrs. Norris was petrified. And I 
just have the feeling that Filch never knew Mrs. Norris when (if) she 
was human. 

<< In an interview with JKR, I'm pretty sure she said that there are 
no wizard primary schools, and that purebloods are home-schooled. >>

<< If [Severus] did go to some form of primary school, it sounds to
 me like his first priority was not to excel at his schoolwork and 
beat his classmates, but to get revenge on whoever has mistreated him 
enough to warrant learning that many curses. >>

I checked both the Lexicon and the Goat Pad and I can't find anything 
from JKR on the subject of how wizard kids get their primary 
education. Therefore, I choose to believe that some are home-schooled 
and some go to smallish primary schools, run by entrepreneurial 
witches, and that young Severus was one who went to a primary school. 

I believe that Severus is a pureblood from an old wizarding family 
with a family tradition of being interested in Dark Arts (IMHO, they 
contributed a few fine DADA professors to Hogwarts over the 
centuries). (A commoner family, like the Weasleys, not a noble family 
like the Malfoys, but a commoner family can acquire quite a few books 
and antiques when they live in the same house for a thousand years.)

His parents found him exceedingly boring; they had never wanted 
children, but felt a duty to have one son to carry on the family 
name. I have a very strong belief that young Severus learned all 
those curses (from books in his parents' library) because the only 
time his parents ever showed any approval of him was when they found 
him studying and learning curses -- I think he had learned quite a 
few before he even started primary school. 

I believe that he was seeking approval and triumph, not vengeance, 
until he'd had a few run-ins with the other kids at primary school. 
This is what I think, even if it can be argued that I am merely 
projecting my own experience of inept but not abusive parents and 
definitely abusive primary school classmates. 

<< However, mysteriously enough, Sirius makes no mention of Snape 
cursing them in high school. Instead, he describes Snape as acting 
entirely within the rules and snooping around trying to get them 
expelled. >>

I think that students cursing other students isn't against the rules 
as long as no one gets killed or permanently seriously damaged: who 
would want to admit that they had fallen for an ambush when they 
could instead claim to have been practising duelling? 

Abigail wrote:

<< I can certainly imagine a situation in which Snape sees that a 
Slytherin student (Draco or C&B, or anybody else) is teetering over 
the edge and just needs a bit of a push to come back to the light 
side - but of course Snape can't give that push because he doesn't 
dare risk his mission. There are greater things at stake than one 
kid's soul, right? I think this    might be a major dilemma for 
Snape, pitting his duties as head of house against his duties to 
Dumbledore and the greater good. >>

He *could* tip off Dumbledore to send someone else (ideally, a 
Slytherin Old Boy or Old Girl) to recruit the wavering Slyth kid to 
the Light Side.

Caroline USC wrote:

<< so I was wondering if ya'll had ideas about what types of pets 
might be particularly useful to Harry? >>

It has been suggested that Harry's new pet will be a Big, Black Dog! 

Btw, USC South Carolina or USC Southern California?




From Edblanning at aol.com  Tue Apr 16 07:56:32 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 03:56:32 EDT
Subject: Crouch Jr, Voldemort and divination (was:Weatherby)/ Phoenixes
Message-ID: <cb.20ae10a1.29ed3330@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37859

Melody:
> Chapter One definitely takes place before the Quidditch Cup, unless Harry is 
> having dreams of the future, but it would make more sense if the 
> conversation between Voldemort and Wormtail took place after they'd seen 
> Crouch Jr.
> 
> The conversation in chapter one seems to indicate that Voldemort has seen 
> the younger Crouch already, but from what Barty Crouch says in chapter 35, 
> Voldemort didn't come to see him until after the Quidditch cup.


I think it *does* make sense, if we bear in mind that he has already 
extracted information from Bertha. Although how he was so sure that Jr was 
going to prove so loyal is not made clear. Young Crouch did go to Azkaban, 
but protesting, not in martyrial style like Mrs Lestrange. I suppose we have 
assume that Bertha didn't just find out that he was at his father's house, 
but must have heard in the conversation between him and Winky something which 
implied his loyalty to Voldemort.

And then again, there is this thing called divination, which gets a  very bad 
press, but presumably is used in the WW. (This came to my mind yesterday when 
I was writing about Lucius, whom I can just see indulging in some kind of 
unspeakable-mancy). Others have suggested that Voldemort sometimes seems to 
be able to read minds and he claims he always knows when people are lying. Do 
these imply some sort of ability to divine intentions? An analogy with 
Dumbledore's abilities to know things no reasonable person should?

Am I right in thinking that Harry experiences the *feeling* that Dumbledore, 
Voldemort and Snape all have to some extent the ability to look inside his 
mind? (Or is this just the projection of a guilty conscience?)

...................................
Uncmark:

>Could you see Harry coming out of a great battle either inheriting 
>Fawkes or more intriguing Fawkes gives Harry an egg (We don't know 
>Fawkes is male or female.)

I'm afraid that I can see the former. I'm very much afraid that Dumbledore is 
not going to survive the series and that Harry, more importantly, is going to 
have to learn to go on without him.

But you've managed to bring us round to the subject of reproduction again, a 
topic which seems to be ubiquitous on this list at the moment! BTW, as Fawkes 
if presumably named after Guy Fawkes, I've always assumed he was male.
Of course in mythology, where there was only one phoenix, reproduction wasn't 
an issue (and presumably the bird was genderless). Do Potterverse phoenixes 
reproduce, or merely resurrect?

In mild curiosity,

Eloise
(who is becoming inreasingly worried that at this rate, she won't survive the 
series, either)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From nitsirk1969 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 16 13:18:19 2002
From: nitsirk1969 at yahoo.com (Kristin)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 06:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Any news on book 5?
In-Reply-To: <a7m34b+3kn2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020416131819.37098.qmail@web13803.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37860


 Hello all,
THis is my first post. :o)  I was wondering if there was any news regarding book 5.  I was hoping it would be coming out soon.  Does any one know anything?
 
Thanks
 


Kristin :o)


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Tue Apr 16 15:19:46 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:19:46 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Any news on book 5?
References: <20020416131819.37098.qmail@web13803.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3CBC4112.FBE000D@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37861

Kristin wrote:
> 
>  Hello all,
> THis is my first post. :o)  I was wondering if there was any news regarding book 5.  I was hoping it would be coming out soon.  Does any one know anything?

At this point no one knows anything. Right now it's anytime between
summer and next year.

Keep this in mind and pass it on to other people you see asking the same
question - You'd have to be living under a rock not to know the release
date of the next book when the release date is announced. If you don't
know right now, trust that no one else knows it as well.

-Katze



From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Tue Apr 16 13:42:23 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:42:23 -0400
Subject: Ron and Fleur
Message-ID: <54F0FCD7.1336AEAC.6E93A4F5@netscape.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37862

Barbara wrote:

>there is this scene at the end of chapter 26 after Harry and Ron returned from the lake with Fleur's sister:

> ... she [Fleur] turned to Harry. 'You saved 'er,' she said breathlessly. 'Even though she was not your 'ostage.' 'Yeah,' said Harry, who was now heartily wishing he'd left all three girls tied to the statue. Fleur bent down, kissed Harry twice on each cheek (he felt his face burn and wouldn't have been surprised if steam was coming out of his ears again), then said to Ron, 'And you, too - you 'helped - ' 'Yeah,' said Ron, looking extremely hopeful, 'yeah, a bit - '...

>Would you count Ron's looking extremely hopeful (in hope, no doubt, of receiving a kiss, as well) as expressing desire for Fleur as a romantic partner or just, again, as losing control whenever she's around?

Welcome, Barbara!

Good point!  Yes, I think he was hoping for a kiss.  But I don't think it indicates any serious interest in Fleur, nor that he's losing control at this stage.

One of the things I like about Ron is that he's pretty up front in his views about girls.  He lacks the self knowledge (in the early part of the book) to recognise the nature of his feelings about Hermione, but he is perfectly happy to see the opposite sex as potentially attractive.  Hence his reaction to Rosmerta - a generation older than him - in POA, his views on Eloise Midgen, and, I think, his reaction to Fleur here.  He also makes no attempt to disguise his edginess whenever Hermione disappears off with Krum.

He is hoping for a kiss from an exceptionally pretty girl, but that seems to be it.  What Fleur, who presumably gets a lot of that sort of hope from boys, thinks, we don't know.

I still think by the end of the book he has matured and is trying to behave in a more adult way with her.

David, who wishes that at Ron's age he'd been brave enough to seek opportunities to kiss girls just for the fun of kissing them - or indeed at any time in the subsequent ten years


__________________________________________________________________
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 ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 16 20:48:10 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:48:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's break from Lucius (Was Re: Draco's redemption)
Message-ID: <F302m7i147DEZZeIopd0000b080@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37863

>Liz:"As I've said before, if Draco can open his eyes a little wider
>and see what's beyond his pointy little nose; and realize that *maybe*
>his dad is wrong about something, he should be okay."

"jferer" <jferer at yahoo.com> said:
>What's going to do that, though? Uncmark is on to the only thing that
>might turn Draco around. Little Draco is going to have to get some
>blood splattered onto his own robes. Daddy Lucius giving him a good
>taste of what *evil* really is might be the only chance Draco gets.
>Don't hold your breath.

Well, what I said combined with a number of other things. I have no doubt in 
my mind it would take more than a good, hard look around to change him. 
Apologies for my unclearness. ;)

Liz (who doesn't want to write that essay on the industrial revolution)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Tue Apr 16 19:49:37 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:49:37 -0000
Subject: Ron and Fleur
In-Reply-To: <54F0FCD7.1336AEAC.6E93A4F5@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <a9hv8h+sbr6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37864

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote:
> Barbara wrote:
> 
> >there is this scene at the end of chapter 26 after Harry and Ron 
returned from the lake with Fleur's sister:

<snip quote from GoF when Fleur gives both Harry and Ron a kiss>

> >Would you count Ron's looking extremely hopeful (in hope, no 
doubt, of receiving a kiss, as well) as expressing desire for Fleur 
as a romantic partner or just, again, as losing control whenever 
she's around?
> 

David wrote:
> 
> Good point!  Yes, I think he was hoping for a kiss.  But I don't 
think it indicates any serious interest in Fleur, nor that he's 
losing control at this stage.
> 
> One of the things I like about Ron is that he's pretty up front in 
his views about girls.  He lacks the self knowledge (in the early 
part of the book) to recognise the nature of his feelings about 
Hermione, but he is perfectly happy to see the opposite sex as 
potentially attractive.  Hence his reaction to Rosmerta - a 
generation older than him - in POA, his views on Eloise Midgen, and, 
I think, his reaction to Fleur here.  He also makes no attempt to 
disguise his edginess whenever Hermione disappears off with Krum.
> 
> He is hoping for a kiss from an exceptionally pretty girl, but 
that seems to be it.  What Fleur, who presumably gets a lot of that 
sort of hope from boys, thinks, we don't know.
> 
> I still think by the end of the book he has matured and is trying 
to behave in a more adult way with her.
> 

I think you're right,David.  Ron has done some real maturing between 
the beginning of GoF and the end.  He doesn't seem any more 
vulnerable to Fleur than Harry is by this point. He is even able to 
overcome his jealosy towards Kurm enough to ask for his autograph, 
even though he's still worried about his possible relationship with 
Hermione.


Jo Serenadust
 





From Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com  Tue Apr 16 21:20:54 2002
From: Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com (Aberforth's Goat)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:20:54 +0200
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #2 - Pettigrew!
Message-ID: <00ab01c1e58c$97aaf470$0200a8c0@shasta>

No: HPFGUIDX 37865

First, sorry for posting this a day late!

This week we're on the sixth of Philip Nell discussion questions.
As usual, if you'd like a look at the whole list click on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Discussion%20Su
mmaries/DISCUSSION%20QUESTIONS%20FROM%20PHILIP%20NEL.htm. If
you'd like a look at the book itself - and have ten dollars to
spare - just saunter on over to Continuum books at
http://www.continuumbooks.com/prev.cgi?bk_id=2431.

THIS WEEK'S QUESTION

Peter Pettigrew

Consider the character of Wormtail (aka Peter Pettigrew).  What
motivates him?  When Harry is upset that he saved Pettigrew's
life, Dumbledore says, 'Pettigrew owes his life to you.  You have
sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt.  When one wizard
saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between
them .. And I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in
the debt of Harry Potter.' When Harry says he doesn't want a bond
with Pettigrew, Dumbledore replies, 'The time may come when you
will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life.' (POA, pg 311).
Does Pettigrew telling Voldemort that his return to power could
be accomplished without Harry Potter (GoF, pgs 13-14) seem
motivated by a desire to help Harry or by Pettigrew's cowardice?
What will his role be in the remaining novels?  Will Pettigrew
remain Voldemort's faithful servant?  Will he help Harry?  Are
these questions complicated further by Sirius Black's suggestion
in Chapter 19 of POA that other Death Eaters might turn against
Pettigrew?

COMMENTS

Just for the record, here's the Reader's Digest version of the
questions:

- Why doesn't Pettigrew want to kill Harry at the beginning of
GoF?
- What's in Pettigrew's future? Will he ...
        Stick to Voldie?
        Help Harry?
        Get picked on by the real bad boys?

Instead of commenting further on these questions - or on
Pettigrew generally - I'd recommend that the gentle reader take a
quick peek at the Pettigrew FAQ I wrote a while back. I've
uploaded it to our files section for this week. At some point in
the future, it should turn up on the HPfGU FAQ site.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Discussion%20Su
mmaries/Pettigrew.htm.

My own feelings about the first question: it could well be a bit
of both. Or it might just be that Pettigrew is starting to get a
little uneasy about a planned kidnapping that involves keeping
Barty JR high on polyjuice for an entire school year and rigging
an international tournament, just to get Harry to touch a portkey
...

As for Pettigrew's future: Caius Marcus once predicted that
Pettigrew will end up redeeming himself by saving Harry's life -
and dying in the process. I don't think he's actually written a
filk to prove it, but all thing being equal (and when it comes to
bad things happening to Pettigrew, they are) it seems like a good
prediction.

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray)
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that
may not have been bravery...."





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Apr 16 11:50:58 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:50:58 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Reminder Regarding OoP Release Date Discussions
Message-ID: <a9h372+toha@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37866

Just a quick reminder from Hexquarters that discussions of possible 
release dates for OoP should take place off the main list.  

To reiterate, HP-Announcements is the place for confirmed information 
about the OoP release date.  This includes messages with a link to a 
*real* news report from a reputable and verifiable source, not just 
rumor and speculation.  The Announcements list is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfGU-Announcements/
   
OT-Chatter is the place for OoP handwringing, hand-holding, wild-
eyed speculation, wishful thinking, insider information, 12-step 
programs and the like.  The OT-Chatter list is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/
  
Thanks for your cooperation.
   
Cindy
 --The Magical Moderator Team




From asilaite at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 16 19:12:32 2002
From: asilaite at hotmail.com (anavenc)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:12:32 -0000
Subject: Weatherby
In-Reply-To: <a9f4uo+7eoj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9ht30+7gq8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37867

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gwendolyngrace" <lee_hillman at u...> wrote:
> 
> We learn later that Crouch has been fighting the Imperius Curse at
> 
> I believe that "Weatherby" is actually the name of a *former*
> assistant of Crouch's, perhaps one who was a lot like Percy. I think
> it's this similarity that reminds Crouch of Weatherby when he thinks
> of Percy--and that lends to his confusion after the Curse is placed 
on
> him.
> 
> At first, I thought Crouch may have already had Imperius cast before
> the Quidditch World Cup. The timeline is ambiguous, although it
> strongly suggests that Voldemort did not make contact until after 
the
> event. However, it may be possible that he *did* arrange to Imperius
> Barty Sr. before the cup, or else decided he needed to enlist Barty
> Jr. prior to the cup, and perhaps at that time, Crouch is suffering
> from the combinative effects of Imperius and a memory charm.
> 
> If that is so, then at no point in GoF do we see Crouch when he has
> not been the victim of dark spellwork. The confusion over
> Weasley/Weatherby, whether initially magically induced or not,
> however, I think clearly derives from a previous employee's name, 
and
> the blurring of past and present Crouch suffers under the curse.
> 
> Gwen

This sounds interesting... But if Crouch calling Percy "Weatherby" 
during the cup indeed was an honest mistake, caused by magically 
induced blurring of past and present, shouldn't somebody of his old 
colleagues, say, Arthur Weasley, have noticed that Crouch was behaving 
out of character?  Surely some remark like "That's not like old Barty, 
confusing his current and former assistants" was in order.

Ana, *amazed how at this stage of not having new canon material there 
always is something new to discuss on this list.  Eagle owls, 
wizarding names... Great!*




From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 16 08:20:58 2002
From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Money and Squibs
In-Reply-To: <F141sxvpNpMb9hRNiBf000181aa@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20020416082058.24637.qmail@web20809.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37868

   Two thoughts have occured to me. What keeps wizards
from turning other things into money with
Transfiguration? Secondly could squibs make potions?
There doesn't seem to be any magic used in the class.
The students just put ingrediants in. The only
difference between potions and chemistry is what goes
is. The squibs would know where to get these things.
They proably would become very good potion makers
since they wouldn't be able to learn any other kind of
magic. While they would have to plan all their attacks
ahead of time, it would make them hard to trace.

                         Eclipse

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




From fluxed at earthlink.net  Tue Apr 16 07:00:10 2002
From: fluxed at earthlink.net (A. Vulgarweed)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:00:10 -0500
Subject: Draco; Owls; The Politics of Predation;Bad News
In-Reply-To: <1018924175.3416.1789.m10@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <l03130302b8e171fc0e2a@[65.56.143.230]>

No: HPFGUIDX 37869


>   From: "uncmark" <uncmark at yahoo.com>
>Ok Compare Lucius and Draco through the four books. Draco, though a
>bully and instigator has done little that cannot be forgiven. For the
>most part, his actions were limited to 'words', insulting mudbloods,
>teasing Harry, and making racist comments. (Agreed, his comments
>about Cedric were bad, but not unforgiveable yet, after all, Darth
>Vader came back in the last movie)

See, I had a problem with that. Darth Vader was a magical strongman for a
genocidal Empire for _how many years?_ How many deaths was he directly or
indirectly responsible for? He ordered an entire _planet_ blasted to
pieces, to break the resistance of a political prisoner he'd just wiled
away a nice afternoon torturing (who was, as it happened, HIS DAUGHTER). So
just because he decides to save part of his own genetic legacy (while,
meanwhile, his henchmen were still doing everything in their power to whack
said daughter and all her pals) and pitch the shriveled old sorcerer he was
hoping to replace all along anyway down a pit, all of a sudden he gets to
join the saints? Nope, didn't buy it. I agree that what Draco has "done" so
far is the smallest of potatoes in the great bloody scheme of things, but
there's got to be more to redemption than just _changing one's mind_. Does
"whoops, sorry I participated in the slaughter of your people (or wanted
to), but that was all a big mistake, I wanna be a good guy now" cut the
mustard? Nope. I better see some ANGST. And more important than that, I
wanna see some -results-.

Leading on to excellent discussion about what Draco's catalyst might turn
out to be--since I think we seem to think that redemption usually requires
one--

uncmark again:
>Oh? Consider his devotion of his mother. In GOF Ch.13, we see Draco
>get angry enough to attack Harry from behind and away from Snape.
>This is unusal because every other duel seemed to have been planned
>to be near Snape so Draco would be safe from any repercussions. What
>got Draco angry? Harry mentioned his mother...


Yup, an excellent point. However, he's not capable of having any empathy
about this sentiment in anyone else--he'd been cracking on the Weasleys,
Hermione's parents, and even a bit of Harry's, all along. He's been using
it to raise hackles since Book One, and what this suggests to me is that he
likes to dish it out, but doesn't like to take it. Whether he actually
cares about his mother as a person or just reacts violently to any sort of
aspersion on his noble lineage is, IMO, yet to be seen.
>
Abigail says:
>I don't happen to be one of the people who believe that Snape secretly
>hates Draco or that he's trying to weaken the next generation of DE by
>being soft on the Slytherins.  I think Snape is a proud Slytherin, and that
>he'd like to see his house come out from under the cloud of suspicion
>cast by all those DE members.  Ironically, his very attempts to atone for
>some of that shame might help to lead a new generation of Slytherins
>astray, for lack of a positive Slytherin role model.

I too think Snape is a proud Slytherin, and I wouldn't put it past him to
think that it's currently so bad-apple-ridden the best thing is to let them
show their true colors and Darwinize themselves, thereby eventually
restoring Slytherin to its proud heritage of generating sublime
politicians, film stars, activists, muckraking journalists (take the good
and the bad with that one....), military strategists (don't take Voldemort
as an example...what an embarrassment HE turned out to be with that weak
Evil Overlord crap), spies, and creators of business empires. (Some would
list the number of successful motivational speakers Slytherin has produced,
but Snape of course hates them). Think of the long tradition of Slytherin
pride: "Yes, Ravenclaws have made some fine scientific discoveries--but
let's see them do it without the funding only we can get them!" I think he
favors his house because, well, he favors his house. Probably all the Heads
do to some extent, but he is the most egregious, because Slytherin is the
most egregious house.

I am inclined to think the catalyst for Draco's alleged redemption (which I
am skeptical about) will involve him in some way. But I also agree with
Porphyria (great name, BTW! but I hope your hair isn't too long...) that
the redemption of some OTHER Slytherin, who will then have to come out of
the shadows of toadydom and/or obscurity and duke it out with the powerful
rich boy s/he once idolized, might make an even better story.
>
   From: "Sandi Steinberg" <sandirs at hotmail.com>

>I'm very fond of owls, but I had never heard of an eagle owl.  I researched
>them online and found that they are a European bird not found in North
>America.  Just as Sirius warned harry not to use Hedwig to messenger their
>correspondence because she would attract too much attention, not being of a
>species native  to Britain, so the eagle owl is really unknown here.

Just had to inject here that not only are snowy owls not native to Britain,
they are Arctic and Sub-arctic birds. (Also that the "actor" who played
Hedwig in the Celluloid Thing must have been a male, like the "actors" who
played Lassie, as female snowys have more dark barring and are not pure
white like that.) But what is Pigwidgeon, then? I always thought he was an
elf owl, as those are tiny and adorable enough--but I don't think those are
native to Europe either. Does it matter for domesticated owls, though?

>It does, however, resemble our very commmon  great horned owl, which is
>slightly smaller, but belongs to the same genus, Bubo, as the eagle (aka the
>Eurasian owl. This includes the largest owls in the world.
>
>Of course Malfoy would have to have the biggest of anything, wouldn't he,
>and the eagle owl, by size alone, would be easily noticed and recognized.

You know what they say about guys with big owls.....;)


and Melody wrote:
>Eagle owls could also just be an aristocratic pet to have, the kind of owl
>all the old pureblood families own.

That's my theory. They probably are the most aristocratic kind.
>
>On the other hand, it's not hard to see a connection between Eagle owls and
>Death Eaters if you're looking for one, (but then, it's easy to see
>connections between anything if you're looking for them) I don't know much
>about owls, but eagles are predators -- as are owls -- and it makes sense
>that the villain would have a very predatory pet.

welll.....nah, doesn't work for me. All owls are predators, eagle owls no
more so than any others (though bigger owls can kill bigger prey). Members
of the cat and dog families are predators too, and I don't think we're
meant to be suspicious of every character with a canine or feline pet or
form. I think domesticated owls must be fed specially anyway, or be magical
enough to watch those instincts, or both, otherwise Mr. Pettigrew's crunchy
rat bones would've been part of a pellet years ago, thereby rendering PoA a
_much_ shorter book.

>
>Melody
>
>   From: "Kelly Shiflet" <birdy739 at hotmail.com>
<snip> I pulled a few strings and got in contact with a publisher,
>asking them, of course, *WHEN'S THE NEXT HP BOOK COMING OUT?!?*. Well, their
>reply was that it probably wouldn't even be out until 2003 (though I don't
>know any specific dates). <ducts the hexs sent my way>
>
sigh.
I would like to pretend I didn't read that.
Thanks for the info anyway....and since you're in the US: HAPPY TAX DAY TO
YOU TOO.

luv
AV






From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Apr 16 23:33:59 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:33:59 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #2 - Pettigrew!
In-Reply-To: <00ab01c1e58c$97aaf470$0200a8c0@shasta>
Message-ID: <a9icd7+kuh5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37870

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Aberforth's Goat" <Aberforths_Goat at Y...>
wrote:

> Consider the character of Wormtail (aka Peter Pettigrew).  What
> motivates him?  

I have no idea how he got that way, but I think Petigrew's 
motivation is simply a morbid fear of death. He'll do anything, even
search out and reactivate Voldemort,  to avoid death in the short
term.  OTOH, he'll take risks that improve his life expectancy.

> When Harry is upset that he saved Pettigrew's
> life, Dumbledore says, 'Pettigrew owes his life to you...' 
> When Harry says he doesn't want a bond
> with Pettigrew, Dumbledore replies, 'The time may come when you
> will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life.' 

That bond is where the rubber meets the possum. My guess is
it will screw up the Method by which Voldemort intends to 
gain power.  We haven't seen Voldemort use a pure-play AK
on Harry,  because of the brother wand effect.  We don't know
if Voldemort can now kill Harry with an unblocked AK.  He 
doesn't know, either.  The PI kept us from knowing until a later
book.  I don't expect to find out in Book Five, either.

> (POA, pg 311).
> Does Pettigrew telling Voldemort that his return to power could
> be accomplished without Harry Potter (GoF, pgs 13-14) seem
> motivated by a desire to help Harry or by Pettigrew's cowardice?

My vote is for cowardice.  If Voldemort could gain his power with
the blood of some other enemy, he could have used
blood from Crouch, Sr. or from Moody, both of whom he or 
Wormtail had overpowered in the plot to get Harry.

> What will his role be in the remaining novels?  Will Pettigrew
> remain Voldemort's faithful servant?  

He'll remain his servant, but not faithfull; he'll do what he's told,
to keep from being fed to Nagini for the next few hours, until 
Voldemort wants something else.

> Will he help Harry?  

If it will postpone his own death.

> Are
> these questions complicated further by Sirius Black's suggestion
> in Chapter 19 of POA that other Death Eaters might turn against
> Pettigrew?

Maybe.  I suppose the Death Eaters will have infighting and hatred
like the Old Gang.  

> - Why doesn't Pettigrew want to kill Harry at the beginning of
> GoF?

He wouldn't mind killing him, I suppose; he wants to avoid the
risk of going after him.  Of course, we don't know the nature of 
the Wizard Life-Debt.  We don't know what it would do to 
Wormtail to kill Harry. But it didn't stop him taking Harry's blood.

> - What's in Pettigrew's future? Will he ...
>         Stick to Voldie?
>         Help Harry?
>         Get picked on by the real bad boys?
> 
> 
> My own feelings about the first question: it could well be a bit
> of both. Or it might just be that Pettigrew is starting to get a
> little uneasy about a planned kidnapping that involves keeping
> Barty JR high on polyjuice for an entire school year and rigging
> an international tournament, just to get Harry to touch a portkey

...Not to mention having to nursemaid baby Voldemort over all 
that time, plus milk Nagini at regular intervals.  But it keeps 
him alive, one day at a time.

> As for Pettigrew's future: Caius Marcus once predicted that
> Pettigrew will end up redeeming himself by saving Harry's life -
> and dying in the process. I don't think he's actually written a
> filk to prove it, but all thing being equal (and when it comes to
> bad things happening to Pettigrew, they are) it seems like a good
> prediction.

People have made predictions of Snape taking a bullet for Harry;
may as well do it for Wormtail, too.  However, somebody 
mentioned that the life-debt may prove a short-circuit on the 
bloodof-foe-flesh-of-servant formula. It leaves Voldemort more
vulnerable than he thinks he is.

Tex





From Zarleycat at aol.com  Tue Apr 16 23:21:21 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:21:21 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #2 - Pettigrew!
In-Reply-To: <00ab01c1e58c$97aaf470$0200a8c0@shasta>
Message-ID: <a9iblh+ku36@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37871

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Aberforth's Goat" <Aberforths_Goat at Y...> 
wrote:
> 
> THIS WEEK'S QUESTION
> 
> Peter Pettigrew
> 
> Consider the character of Wormtail (aka Peter Pettigrew).  What
> motivates him?  

 
> - Why doesn't Pettigrew want to kill Harry at the beginning of
> GoF?

I'm ambivalent about Pettigrew's motivations.  His entire demeanor in 
the opening scene in GoF swings from one emotion to another.  He's 
clearly afraid of Voldemort, yet when Voldemort talks about the 
return of his faithful servant and how he needs someone with brains 
and loyalty that has never wavered, implying that Peter does not 
quite fit the bill for any of these attributes, Peter's responses are 
called "sullen" and "sulky."  That strikes me as the attitude of a 
person who thinks he is being taken for granted.  

Perhaps this feeling of being overlooked, of not being given one's 
due, is part of what turned Peter against his boyhood friends.  If 
that's the case, Voldemort may be wise to recognize it before Peter 
turns against him, too.  

So, on the whole, I think Peter does whatever he feels he has to do 
to not endanger himself.  But, and here's where the ambivalence comes 
in, I do think his unwillingness to kill Harry comes from the life-
debt.  Peter, being Peter, may also find the idea of this debt 
uncomfortable and unsettling because he realizes it may cause him to 
act in ways that he wants to avoid.  He might have to cause his own 
injury or death in order to protect Harry and pay off the debt, and 
that's not something that's in his nature.


> - What's in Pettigrew's future? Will he ...
>         Stick to Voldie?
>         Help Harry?
>         Get picked on by the real bad boys?

Yes, maybe and yes. For the Harry question, see above.

Pettigrew will stick to Voldie because he has nowhere else to go, but 
all the while that he throws his lot in with the DEs, he'll be looked 
down upon by them.  I think that they see him as Voldie's lapdog who 
fetches and carries and generally acts as a servant to Voldie without 
having any position in the real wizard world the way that Malfoy and 
McNair do.  Will they torture him, abuse him, etc.?  I think that 
Voldie holds that threat over Peter's head, and may very well be 
amused by allowing his other minions to pick on or torment Wormtail.
Such a charming and happy group of folks, aren't they?

Marianne
  




From chynarose8 at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 17 04:08:56 2002
From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (Michelle Strauss)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:08:56 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Money and Squibs
Message-ID: <F286OtjTsLAU3CGG7920000ba40@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37872

Eclipse had asked:  >> What keeps wizards from turning other things into 
money with Transfiguration? Secondly could squibs make potions?
There doesn't seem to be any magic used in the class.  The students just put 
ingrediants in. The only difference between potions and chemistry is what 
goes is. The squibs would know where to get these things. They proably would 
become very good potion makers since they wouldn't be able to learn any 
other kind of magic. While they would have to plan all their attacks ahead 
of time, it would make them hard to trace. <<

To answer the first question as best I can, normally I would say ethics, but 
I don't think that would stop some of them. Personally, I believe that it's 
pretty much like the old alchemy problem of turning lead into gold. I think 
that there are ways through both potions and transfiguration to turn 
something into gold, *but* there are catches. First, it would be bloody near 
impossible to do, say on the order of the wolfsbane potion or anamagi 
training. Second, it wouldn't be permament: kinda like leprechaun gold. 
After a while it would revert to it's original state, or vanish, or melt.

To answer the second question as best I can, yes and no. Yes in that it 
would be physically and theoretically possible depending on the potion. No 
in that they would never be given the chance to even try. The same with Care 
of Magical (docile/harmless) Creatures, Herbology, Divination (hey even *I* 
could do that stuff if I had a book with what the various symbols meant), 
Muggle Studies, History of Magic, and possibly Astronomy, Arithmancy, and 
Ancient Runes if they are what I think they are. Problem is, because they 
can't 'do magic'in the normal sense (Transfiguration, charms, hexes, and 
curses) it is assumed that they can't do anything relating to magic, and are 
therefore never trained to do any of it. I think it's a bit like saying 
since a person has... let's say... dislexia doesn't have the ability to do 
well in any subject so lets not even bother trying to send them to school 
and instead we'll just let them learn a trade where reading, writing, math, 
and science doesn't have much impact -say baisc janitorial work and physical 
hard labor. While it is true that they will never excel in certain areas, 
they still have the *potential* to excel in others.
@---<-- Chyna Rose






_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From catlady at wicca.net  Wed Apr 17 03:47:30 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:47:30 -0000
Subject: Money and Squibs // Pettigrew
In-Reply-To: <20020416082058.24637.qmail@web20809.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a9ir8i+monu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37873

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Eclipse <eclipse02134 at y...> wrote:
>    Two thoughts have occured to me. What keeps wizards
> from turning other things into money with
> Transfiguration?

I think the Galleons, Sickles, and Knuts come from some special 
magical source that can't be imitated (much less created) by 
Tranfiguration. Because of the old saying that "money doesn't grow 
on trees", I like to think that they grow on very rare magical trees 
that are kept under heavy guard, perhaps at the MoM. A similar 
possibility is that they are the droppings of some magical beast, but 
that page was torn out of the copy of FB that was duplicated for sale 
to Muggles. 

> Secondly could squibs make potions?
> There doesn't seem to be any magic used in the class.
> The students just put ingrediants in. The only
> difference between potions and chemistry is what goes in.

In my opinion, putting the ingredients into the cauldron and cooking 
them as directed wouldn't result in anything but a smelly mess, 
perhaps poisonous if the ingredients were poisonous to start with, 
but NOT a potion, UNLESS the ingredient were prepared and put into 
the cauldron and the cauldron was stirred by a person with magic. 
Therefore, not a Squib.

PETTIGREW:

Maybe I'll get around to writing something for the discussion 
questions. Meanwhile, I can add one: Why did the Sorting Hat put him 
in Gryffindor?




From carrie at williamstucker.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Apr 16 13:08:31 2002
From: carrie at williamstucker.freeserve.co.uk (carrie1138)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:08:31 -0000
Subject: The Mysterious Eagle Owl (was Beastly Li'l Snape)
In-Reply-To: <F257FEygjsuVxpwaknH0000ef4e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9h7of+di9m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37874

Cindy wrote: (I think it was Cindy, anyway, difficult to tell among 
so many quotes!)

> >So. What was that darn eagle owl doing that night?
<snip all the excellent discussion so far - too much to quote!>

Voldemort is clearly associated with an eagle owl in chapter  29, 
p500 UK hb ed:

'[Harry] was riding on the back of an eagle owl...' In his dream, 
which I think we all agree is a clairvoyant episode, he flies into 
Voldemort's room and Voldemort receives news of Crouch Sr's death 
from the owl. I at first (once I noticed Harry noticing the owl, 
which took me four readings of GoF, by the way) assumed the owl Harry 
saw was taking the news of Crouch's death to Voldemort. But as Amy in 
her excellent post pointed out, the owl at that time left the owlery 
far too early to be the same owl on the same journey. So I looked 
again at these passages, and I think <*drumroll*> I think I've got it!

The owl was taking a message from Crouch Jr to his father's office to 
the Ministry! Chapter 28, page 477, Percy's letter:

'As I am constantly telling the Daily Prophet, Mr Crouch is taking a 
well-deserved break. He is sending in regular owls with 
instructions.... I think I can be trusted to know my own superior's 
handwriting.'

This only eight pages after Harry sees the owl. Okay, it's at least a 
month later in chronology, but the messages to the office would be an 
ongoing thing, and the owls are close enough together in the text for 
us to be meant to associate them, I think. It would be easy enough 
for Crouch Jr to forge his father's handwriting.

But then, uh oh... on p598, Crouch Jr says that Voldemort 'forced 
[Crouch Sr] to send letters to the Ministry', so that proves the 
letters are coming from Crouch Sr himself. So that shoots down my 
theory. See - this is why I don't post much, I keep disproving my own 
theories!

So in that case, I'll go back to almost my original idea, that the 
owl *was* taking a message from Crouch Jr to Voldemort. Surely, as 
his most trusted servant, Crouch was sending regular updates to 
Voldemort, maybe once a week, so that he would know everything was 
going according to plan (or not). The fact that it is mentioned 
specifically as being an eagle owl to me means that we are meant to 
associate it with the owl that later visits Voldemort, and the fact 
that we already know Draco Malfoy also owns an eagle owl is just a 
nice piece of red herring, IMO.

Carrie1138







From alina at distantplace.net  Wed Apr 17 05:13:45 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:13:45 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Money and Squibs
References: <F286OtjTsLAU3CGG7920000ba40@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <001101c1e5ce$a6a5ec40$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37875

> Eclipse had asked:  >> What keeps wizards from turning other things into
> money with Transfiguration? Secondly could squibs make potions?
> There doesn't seem to be any magic used in the class.


I'll use the example of Neville to answer that question. He said himself
that he's almost a squib. Now, Neville doesn't do well in potions, or in
fact in almost anything, but manages due to the fact that he's only "almost"
a squib. It's not as if Neville can't find the right ingridients or learn
how to heat up a cauldron. He just always seems to do little things like
adding ingridients at the wrong time or in the wrong order. It is possible
that those are just the symptoms of his bad memory. But maybe that's how it
would be for a squib. Filch, for a example, perhaps would keep on making
stupid little mistakes and never get a potion right.

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.344 / Virus Database: 191 - Release Date: 02/04/2002




From Ahketsi at aol.com  Wed Apr 17 01:43:02 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:43:02 EDT
Subject: Money and Squibs
Message-ID: <195.579502a.29ee2d26@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37876

"Secondly could squibs make potions?
There doesn't seem to be any magic used in the class.
The students just put ingrediants in."  -Eclipse

Yes, but do you think potion brewing is something that even muggles could do 
if told how? Squibs are basically muggles related mostly or entirely to 
wizards, right? Anyway, I thought that maybe wands are needed to stir potions 
for them work, or maybe the person inserting the ingredients must simply be a 
witch or wizard. Or maybe you're right and it just depends on having the 
ingredients. 

-Jacey




From anglinsbees at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 05:59:00 2002
From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (anglinsbees)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 05:59:00 -0000
Subject: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
Message-ID: <a9j2v4+3h4p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37877

Delurking a bit here, to bring up a point that struck me real hard 
as I listent to the GOF Book on tape this morning.

Damn I'm Dense.
So is Harry.
So are all the triwizard Champions.
So are We all!

Why didn't Harry just use the summoning charm he had ready to summon 
the golden egg to himself?  If He could summon his broom all the way 
from the castle, on a route that is certainly not direct. (It had to 
come around the woods, after all.  Then Why not just summon the egg 
he wants from the other side of the enclosure.

He is told in the tent that his task is to "Get the golden Egg" 
Not 'Get past the dragon.'  or 'Prove your bravory by getting the 
egg in as showy a way as possible."  Just "Get the Golden Egg" 


I wouldn't be suprised if Moody/ Crouch was standing by, cursing the 
obtuse Griffindor for not making the easy leap to simply summoning 
the egg.  His conversation with Harry before hand, when he drops the 
hints to the summoning charms could be interpreted as especially 
subtle manupulation.  He asks Harry what he is good at. (Build up 
their confidence.) Then drops a suggestion- a simple spell to "GET 
WHAT YOU NEED!"  

Ok, So Harry now has ample motivation to learn the summoning charm, 
to get the broom.  It must have just about given Moody/Crouch Jr. an 
ulcer to watch that Grandstanding Griffindor actually fly about the 
Dragons head, instead of making the <OBVIOUS> leap to just summoning 
the damn egg into his arms. 

On the same line, the only reason I can see for not using a 
summoning charm to get the Goblet of Fire as soon as he had stepped 
into the maze, is they were, if I recall correctly, told to get to 
the middle of the maze.  (Or were they?)  Would summoning the GOF 
over or thru the Maze have been considered cheating?  Given the rule 
bending going on all over the competition, I suspect not.

I think summoning Spells may be an even more dangerous loophole than 
Veritaserum. 

Ellen A.K.A. Moriel Malkin
A Pottering Beekeeper
Thinking that playing a Slytherin in Naginis_Kiss RPG is warping me 
slowly but surely. Now if it would only give me some backbone.




From elfundeb at aol.com  Wed Apr 17 07:28:26 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:28:26 EDT
Subject: LOLLIPOPS
Message-ID: <1a5.d94a5a.29ee7e1a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37878

I've been stopped by customs on the gangplank to the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, as 
Captain Tabouli has questioned the genuineness of my credentials.  On 
reflection, I'm not sure I have sufficient credentials, but I'll respond to 
her questions and let her be the judge.  

I said:

Though I hold to the idea that it was general disillusionment 
> with the 'good' side's apparent failure to adhere to principles that pushed 
> him in the direction his Slytherin gang was heading (still confused as to 
> the 
> name of this theory), it must have taken an enormous amount of 
> disillusionment - way more than the Prank could offer, or 
> L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., 
> or both. <
> 
To which Tabouli responded, in part:
> 
> What's more surprising is that he appeared to devote a lot of his life 
> snooping about trying to smear the Marauders (James, Remus, Sirius, Peter), 
> to the extent that Sirius is so irritated that he snaps and tells him to 
> check out the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack.  Why?? [snip]..I'd say there's 
> a good chance that the thing James had which Snape envied, and for which 
> Snape plunged himself into a shame so intense he spent the rest of his 
> schooldays trying to avenge it, was Lily.
> 
Since I see Snape is an extraordinarily complicated person, placing love of 
Lily above other factors for sneaking after James and Sirius, and for joining 
up with the DEs because he cannot persuade her they are unworthy, seems too 
simple and too melodramatic for my taste.  Getting the Marauders in trouble 
is not going to endear him to Lily; James has gotten into lots of trouble 
before (at the Three Broomsticks Hagrid compares James & Sirius to the 
Weasley twins) and Lily doesn't seem to mind.  But Snape may have thought 
getting his chief rivals for the Head Boy position expelled, or at least 
getting them enough black marks in their books while his rulebreaking record 
remained spotless, might make his candidacy look better.  It's a very 
Slytherin-ish thing to do.

I like LOLLIPOPS better as a motivating factor (though not the primary one) 
for Snape's departure from the DEs.  IMO, he realizes not long after joining 
the DEs just how sick and meaningless the the Dark side's agenda is, and how 
demeaning it is to be there, and he wants out.  But it takes real courage to 
escape, because he knows that once he leaves there will be a price on his 
head.  The extra push to summon the courage to go back to Dumbledore could 
have come from learning that the Potters had been targeted.  Not only would 
it have given him specific information to approach Dumbledore with, but two 
complementary factors could also come into play:  remembrance of his feelings 
for kind Lily (even if she is not targeted, she is at risk) and his life-debt 
to James.

> James becomes a Quidditch star, but unless there's a lot more to it this is 
> hardly a personal affront to Severus.  Lots of people from enemy houses get 
> onto Quidditch teams... why pick out James for particular resentment?  

Reading "Snape's Grudge" from PoA suggests to me that the Quidditch issue was 
related to Snape's resentment that James' rulebreaking appeared to have been 
largely condoned ("Rules were for lesser mortals, not Quidditch-cup 
winners.") 
 
>  not to mention Snape's immediate, unaccountable hatred for Harry before he 
> even   
   opens his mouth, 

I don't get the sense that Lily has anything to do with this.  Rather, I 
account for Snape's immediate targeting of Harry as related to a conviction 
that James' arrogance and overconfidence in himself and his rulebreaking 
friends ("too arrogant to think he might have been mistaken in Sirius") was a 
fatal character flaw that led directly to James' and Lily's death.  Snape 
wants Harry to know from the get-go that he's not better than everyone else, 
even if he is The Boy Who Lived.  Snape may know that Harry was raised by 
Muggle relatives, but is unlikely to have known just what kind of upbringing 
the Dursleys provided for Harry or that he grew up unaware of his wizarding 
past; as Lily was a witch he would have at least surmised that they were 
familiar with the wizarding world.  So Snape probably assumes Harry arrived 
at Hogwarts with an enormous head and he wants to cut it down to size.  Then, 
the very first week of school the rules are bent to allow first-year Harry to 
play Quidditch, reinforcing Snape's conviction that Harry needs to be put in 
his place.

Why does Snape care so much?  I believe it's not just because he enjoys 
tormenting James' son from the side of authority, as he probably longed to do 
to James (though I bet he does enjoy it).  I think it's because he knows that 
in all likelihood Harry will become deeply involved in any struggle against 
Voldemort, and Harry's success may determine Snape's own survival.  Snape 
surely knows that Voldemort has targeted him for death as a traitor.  So when 
he sees Harry at Hogwarts he determines to do everything he can to make sure 
that Harry doesn't develop the same sort of fatal arrogance he perceives 
James to have had.  Lacking better methods, he does it through threats and 
intimidation.  It doesn't matter that Snape probably doesn't have the power 
to expel Harry, as long as Harry believes the threat of expulsion is real.

Tabouli's response to Catlady's point (with which I agree) that Snape mainly 
resented James and Sirius because of their grades:

> In an interview with JKR, I'm pretty sure she said that there are no wizard 
> primary schools, and that purebloods are home-schooled.  Of course, we 
> don't know whether Severus was a pureblood, but I'd say the chances are if 
> he turned up at 11 knowing more curses than half the seventh years, he has 
> to have grown up knowing he was a wizard and therefore must be at least 
> half blood.  If he was homeschooled, I seriously doubt that he'd turn up at 
> Hogwarts expecting to get top marks: if this was his first experience of 
> school, presumably he wouldn't know what to expect.  If he did go to some 
> form of primary school, it sounds to me like his first priority was not to 
> excel at his schoolwork and beat his classmates, but to get revenge on 
> whoever has mistreated him enough to warrant learning that many curses.
> 
I disagree with the premise that Snape would not have come to Hogwarts 
expecting top grades.  Whether or not wizards had any formal schooling prior 
to Hogwarts, I think they understood that grades are important.  For example, 
Lucius berates Draco about his first-year grades at Mr. Borgin's shop in CoS, 
and Ron worries about keeping up with the high expectations set by his 
brothers on the train to Hogwarts in first year.  Though I certainly agree 
that Snape's lack of social skills must have set him apart from, and perhaps 
caused his rejection by, any other wizarding children in his hometown (I 
started writing a Snape backstory some time ago that starts from this 
premise), I think that proving that he's a lot smarter than they are and 
therefore he doesn't need their friendship  is an equal or better revenge. (I 
envision a childhood spent in the home library giving himself tutorials on 
curses and maybe potions too, which helped convince him he was superior to 
the kids who rejected him.)

More from Tabouli's response to Catlady:

However, mysteriously enough, Sirius makes no mention of Snape cursing them 
in high school.  Instead, he describes Snape as acting entirely within the 
rules and snooping around trying to get them expelled.  Perhaps Snape's 
scared of getting caught and punished, but I somehow suspect Snape would be 
pretty good at being cunning and underhand and evading punishment.  I think 
it's more likely there was something else in the equation.  Someone else.  
Someone who believed in principles and treating people fairly and kindly.

Me:

Well, it could have been Lily.  Or it could have been Dumbledore.  I would 
argue that Snape followed the rules in order to distinguish himself from 
James and Sirius, and because of a supposition that only the popular, 
Quidditch-playing crowd can get away with rulebreaking.  I think it's a 
reasonable possibility that Snape's childhood may have included an absent or 
emotionally distant father such that he saw Dumbledore as a father-figure or 
mentor that he had a need to impress.  The Head Boy position would therefore 
have represented not only success but also the approval of Dumbledore.  This 
would have added to his resentment of Dumbledore's apparent favoritism toward 
the rulebreaking Marauders.

Finally, a comment from ilovbrian_99 (Melanie):


> Actually I think since we know so little about Lily I think it's almost as 
> if she is a Mary Sue, which is a sad realization but it's true.  I think 
> Lily was probably somewhat nice to Severus, I can't see her really be cruel 
> 

This raises an interesting question.  Is there any solid canon support for 
the proposition that Lily was invariably kind to Severus?  Or has this idea 
developed from the opposite direction, i.e., Snape obviously had difficulties 
in romance (Tabouli presented the canon evidence in #28850), Lily is the most 
likely, or at least the most obvious candidate, and therefore she must have 
been nice to him?  I don't think we can simply point to Lily's undeniably 
deep love for Harry to support this; that doesn't mean she was nice to 
everyone, including a greasy-haired socially inept Slytherin who was out to 
get James.  Moreover, what we know of Lily is very sketchy and filtered 
through Harry, whose information is far from complete and presents a very 
idealistic view of her.  So I ask, is Lily's kindness an essential component 
of LOLLIPOPS?  Personally, I can't see Snape carrying the torch for someone 
who treated him badly, but I have always assumed that as a Muggle-born 
without any preconceived antipathy toward Slytherin, Lily was in fact nice to 
him. 

Bottom line, while I see enough circumstantial evidence to support the idea 
that Snape loved Lily, and it adds poignancy to Snape's story, on reflection 
I find it hard to ascribe the theory more than secondary status in assessing 
Snape's motivations for his antipathy toward James and Sirius, his joining 
the DEs, and for leaving them.

Debbie, suspecting that she will not be fully welcome on the good ship 
LOLLIPOPS, clings to her precarious perch on the FLIRTIAC dinghy where she 
will sip her margarita and wave to Captain Tabouli



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From anglinsbees at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 07:33:27 2002
From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (anglinsbees)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:33:27 -0000
Subject: Harry's new pet?
In-Reply-To: <a9g9e3+js5h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9j8g7+3jm3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37879


> > 
> > I haven't read Fantastic Beasts *squirms guiltly* so I was 
> > wondering if ya'll had ideas about what types of pets might be 
> > particularly useful to Harry?
> > 


Of the beasts in "Fantastic Beasts" I think a runespoor would make a 
great pet for Harry. (It is a three headed serpent that was, in the 
past, a favored pet of Parseltongues. The three heads are all 
intellegent, and talk to one another.)  

I do agree however, that it seems very likely that Fawkes has picked 
Harry as his next owner, after Dumbledore.  Fawkes has twice now 
been impressed enough to heal Harry's wounds, and that is quite 
something.  (Dumbledore was impressed!)  

This raises the question- Is Dumbledore going to die?  
Traditionally, there has only ever been one, Pheonix at a time. The 
bird renews itself from its own ashes, but in traditional Mythology, 
there was only one (It was considered the "King" of the birds by the 
writers of medieval bestiaries, just as the lion was the king of the 
animals, and the Dragon or Basilisk is the King of the Serpents.)  

It appears that in the HP-verse, there are other Pheonixes. It is 
stated that Hand V share wand cores from the <same> pheonix, whic 
himplies to me that there are other Pheonixes. Fantastic Beasts 
states that they "Nest on Mountaintops" This doesn't necessarily 
mean they are nesting to breed, but may indicate that possibility.

Still, if The big D dies, I think Harry is the one to whom Fawkes 
will turn.

Ellen
A Pottering Beekeeper
Thinking back hard to that class she took last Pennsic about 
Medieval Bestiaries.




From anglinsbees at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 07:19:56 2002
From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (anglinsbees)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:19:56 -0000
Subject: Potions and Squibs
In-Reply-To: <195.579502a.29ee2d26@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9j7ms+3l8m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37880

Well, You have to figure that the magic has to be added to the 
potion somehow- and if not from the wizard, then from where?  The 
ingredients alone are probably not enough.  The only analogy I can 
thing of is a religious one.  (Forgive me for bringing in religious 
beliefs, but I can think of no other analogy, and no disrespect is 
intended.) 

When a priest performs the Eucharist, the wine and bread are 
transformed into somenting beyont their ordinary substance.  If you 
are not a priest, it doesn't matter how perfectly you recite the 
prayers and perform the ceremony- it's not the real thing.  If you 
arent a prioest, then you dont have the "Right Stuff" and it just 
isn't going to work.

I see potions as being the same.  If you arent a Wizard, then no 
matter how perfect your technique is, the potion isnt going to have 
that activating energy- the magic.

As for divination- it's not the cards, crystals and tea leaves that 
tell a good diviner what to say.  They are merely a focus to get the 
diviner in the proper frame of mind to read the client.  (The best 
real world readers I know say they dont read cards, they read the 
client- the cards are just a prop for the best of them.)  It hink 
this would be true in the Hp-verse also.  Trelawn's one real 
prediction that we witness is not inspired by any of her 
paraphenalia, but instead, drops in from an unknown source. To me 
this means the tru gift comes from within. 


Ellen A.K.A. Moriel Malkin
A pottering beekeeper

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ahketsi at a... wrote:
> "Secondly could squibs make potions?
> There doesn't seem to be any magic used in the class.
> The students just put ingrediants in."  -Eclipse
> 
> Yes, but do you think potion brewing is something that even 
muggles could do 
> if told how? Squibs are basically muggles related mostly or 
entirely to 
> wizards, right? Anyway, I thought that maybe wands are needed to 
stir potions 
> for them work, or maybe the person inserting the ingredients must 
simply be a 
> witch or wizard. Or maybe you're right and it just depends on 
having the 
> ingredients. 
> 
> -Jacey




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 16 18:36:36 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:36:36 -0000
Subject: The Mysterious Eagle Owl
In-Reply-To: <F257FEygjsuVxpwaknH0000ef4e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9hqvk+mmsv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37881

Cindy wrote:

> >So.  What was that darn eagle owl doing that night?

What I take from this, given the other mentions of eagle owls as 
associated with Draco or (in Harry's dream in GF, "The Dream") 
Voldemort, is that "eagle owl" is a big screaming neon sign 
saying "TROUBLE HERE!"  In the midst of this rather poignant scene, 
it's a warning.  This reader missed it completely the first 3 times 
she read GF, but if any eagle owls stick their beaks into OoP, I'm 
on 'em like white on rice.

What was it doing that night?  Well, we know there are communications 
between Crouch Jr. and Voldemort, and as Tex points out, there may be 
some between Draco and Rita as well.  Then there are the other dodgy 
things going on, like Bagman coping with the goblins (Cindy, you 
asked long ago whether we could implicate him <g>) and Fred and 
George coping with Bagman.  No particular event in the books matches 
up with this post, if it even is a post and not just an owl out for a 
pleasant springtime fly, but to very attentive readers it conveys a 
sense of foreboding.

Amy Z
who, speaking of foreboding, just got to the end of "The Pensieve" on 
GF Listen #19 and must add its last lines to the Great Chapter 
Endings Hall of Fame




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 17 10:39:24 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:39:24 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #2 - Pettigrew!
In-Reply-To: <00ab01c1e58c$97aaf470$0200a8c0@shasta>
Message-ID: <a9jjcs+kfbs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37882

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Aberforth's Goat" <Aberforths_Goat at Y...> 
wrote:
>  Are
> these questions complicated further by Sirius Black's suggestion
> in Chapter 19 of POA that other Death Eaters might turn against
> Pettigrew?

IIRC, Sirius thought the other DEs would go after Peter because they 
blamed him for Voldemort's downfall.  Now that he's brought 
Voldemort back, that's not really a motivation.  So I don't think 
they'd actively turn against him, but I do think they'll bully him 
if they get a chance, because he's just so damn bullyable.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 10:44:27 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:44:27 -0000
Subject: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
In-Reply-To: <a9j2v4+3h4p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9jjmb+l11k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37883

Anglinsbees delurked in order

> to bring up a point that struck me real hard 
> as I listent to the GOF Book on tape this morning.
> 
> Damn I'm Dense.
> So is Harry.
> So are all the triwizard Champions.
> So are We all!
> 
> Why didn't Harry just use the summoning charm he had ready to summon 
> the golden egg to himself?  If He could summon his broom all the way 
> from the castle, on a route that is certainly not direct. (It had to 
> come around the woods, after all.  Then Why not just summon the egg 
> he wants from the other side of the enclosure.

Welcome, Anglinsbees!  This is a really good question, answerable 
only, I think, by "because dragon eggs are protected by very strong 
magic and one can't just Summon one out of the nest, even if it's just 
a golden fake."  JKR doesn't explain this; I'm just speculating.  But 
it makes a lot of sense given how powerful dragons' magic is, and it's 
the kind of thing that she might leave out for the sake of 
compression.  The Triwizard Cup would be unSummonable for the same 
reason.

> I wouldn't be suprised if Moody/ Crouch was standing by, cursing the 
> obtuse Griffindor for not making the easy leap to simply summoning 
> the egg.  His conversation with Harry before hand, when he drops the 
> hints to the summoning charms could be interpreted as especially 
> subtle manupulation.  He asks Harry what he is good at. (Build up 
> their confidence.) Then drops a suggestion- a simple spell to "GET 
> WHAT YOU NEED!"  

I love the image of FakeMoody fretting at the first task, his stomach 
acids churning, but if the intent of his hint was to get Harry to just 
summon the darn egg, why did he bring up "Play to your strengths" and 
seize on flying?  No, I think Harry got the hint exactly as it was 
intended.  Moody knows you can't Summon a dragon's egg away from her.

You aren't the only one who's noticed that Accio! opens up a world of 
possibilities and, possibly, plot holes.  E.g. a lot of people have 
asked why Harry didn't simply Accio the Map in "The Egg and the Eye" 
(he might've been able to Accio the egg, too).  Other than "because it 
would end a terrific scene before it even got started" <g>, a common 
answer is "because he was totally rattled and just didn't think of 
it."

> He is told in the tent that his task is to "Get the golden Egg" 
> Not 'Get past the dragon.'  or 'Prove your bravory by getting the 
> egg in as showy a way as possible."  Just "Get the Golden Egg" 

Now this is a question I have.  Harry seems to know nothing about the 
rules of this thing except "get the golden egg" (presumably "and live 
to tell the tale" is a part of that <g>), but there's at least one 
other rule:  try not to let the other eggs be damaged (Viktor loses 
points for having done so).  I know none of the champions probably 
cares any more than Harry does about such niceties--they just want to 
get through this thing alive, never mind any points--but still, you'd 
think Bagman would have told them, right?  I suppose this is another 
case of compression, but it always jars me a bit.  I need a line 
in the tent scene like "Bagman was telling them some other things 
about the task, but Harry was too numb to listen."

Amy Z
who would really like to learn beekeeping




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Tue Apr 16 18:19:39 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:19:39 -0000
Subject: Dark Went the Mark on My Arm (filk)
Message-ID: <a9hpvr+1at0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37884

Dark Went the Mark on My Arm

(To the tune of Zing! Went The Strings Of My Heart) 

Dedicated to Mariner

Hear the original at: 
http://www.carlinamerica.com/titles/titles.cgi?
MODULE=LYRICS&ID=299&terms=1972

THE SCENE: The Potions Dungeon. Enter SNAPE, immediately after being 
sent on his secret mission by Dumbledore at the end of GoF)

SNAPE
I feel Fate frown on me,
Just like some malady
That haunted me and does harm 
Something tattooed on me 
Started my agony
Dark went the Mark on my arm 

`Twas like the death of hope
A downward slip'ry slope
When Voldy set off alarms
I thought that was all past
But I'm once more aghast
Dull burns the Skull on my arm

As we face You-Know-Who again, 
Albus said, "We need you again 
To stage a counter-coup again, 
You must do, must do."

Should I take Polyjuice? 
Put V-Serum to use?
Or cast Unforgiven Charms?
Whatever I decide is for now classified.
Ache! Went the Snake on my arm!

  - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm





From anglinsbees at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 11:07:10 2002
From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (anglinsbees)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:07:10 -0000
Subject: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
In-Reply-To: <a9jjmb+l11k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9jl0u+nsua@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37886

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" <lupinesque at y...> wrote:
 
> it makes a lot of sense given how powerful dragons' magic is, and 
it's 
> the kind of thing that she might leave out for the sake of 
> compression.  The Triwizard Cup would be unSummonable for the same 
> reason.

Ah- but he <did> summon it into his hand in the cemetary- in order 
to portkey back with Cedrics body.  My problem with this scene is 
that in this instnce, the portkey seems to work differently than the 
way portkeys did previously.  If a portkey takes you back whre it 
came from the second time you touch it, it would create all sorts of 
handling problems at the World cup- and they handled the used 
portkeys vary casually, tossing them in a box. 



> I love the image of FakeMoody fretting at the first task, his 
stomach 
> acids churning, but if the intent of his hint was to get Harry to 
just 
> summon the darn egg, why did he bring up "Play to your strengths" 
and 
> seize on flying?  No, I think Harry got the hint exactly as it was 
> intended.  Moody knows you can't Summon a dragon's egg away from 
her.

I was looking at himn being very subtle- telling Harry to Accio it 
would have been very obvious.
Un- summonability is a possibility, but Hermione says the magic is 
in the Dragons Hide.  The invulnerability does not extend to their 
eyes, however, so it does not appear to have a radius effect, such 
as you describe.  If the magic invulnerability of dragons spread 
beyong their hide, their eyes would be protected from curses. (OK, 
so it's dragonhide, eggs may be another thing all together, but I 
don't see why.)




> 
> You aren't the only one who's noticed that Accio! opens up a world 
of 
> possibilities and, possibly, plot holes.  E.g. a lot of people 
have 
> asked why Harry didn't simply Accio the Map in "The Egg and the 
Eye" 
> (he might've been able to Accio the egg, too).  Other 
than "because it 
> would end a terrific scene before it even got started" <g>, a 
common 
> answer is "because he was totally rattled and just didn't think of 
> it."

Because he was in pain (The stair) and because he was trying to be 
silent? (Verbal spell components are a bitch!)



 
> > He is told in the tent that his task is to "Get the golden Egg" 
> > Not 'Get past the dragon.'  or 'Prove your bravory by getting 
the 
> > egg in as showy a way as possible."  Just "Get the Golden Egg" 
> 
> Now this is a question I have.  Harry seems to know nothing about 
the 
> rules of this thing 
>I know none of the champions probably 
> cares any more than Harry does about such niceties--they just want 
to 
> get through this thing alive, never mind any points--but still, 
you'd 
> think Bagman would have told them, right?  I suppose this is 
another 
> case of compression, but it always jars me a bit.  I need a line 
> in the tent scene like "Bagman was telling them some other things 
> about the task, but Harry was too numb to listen."

And the rules change!
Near the beginning, the champions are told that the one with the 
most points will win, and then, when they go to enter the maze, the 
points are only used to determine the order they get to enter the 
maze in. The one who gets the cup wins, regardless of their point 
total.  (Sorry I cant back it up with an exact quote, but I'm 
listening to the books on tape.)

Ellen
A Pottering Beekeeper






From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr 16 13:27:07 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:27:07 -0000
Subject: FILK: Capture Black
Message-ID: <a9h8rb+7uvq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37887

Capture Black
To the tune of "Paint it Black," by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards

Scene: Snape confronts Sirius and Lupin at the Shrieking Shack

SNAPE
I knew I'd find you here inside the Shrieking Shack.
Vengeance is in my grasp, I've finally captured Black.
You and your werewolf friend are headed for the Kiss.
I've waited almost all my adult life for this!

LUPIN
Please listen to me, Snape, you don't have all the facts.
There's been injustice done, you mustn't capture Black.
It's all a fiendish plot by Peter Pettigrew.
Help us to right this wrong, it all depends on you.

SNAPE
These claims of innocence are totally off-track.
No matter what you say, I plan to capture Black.
Just give me an excuse, I'm ready to attack,
You may have fooled these kids, but you don't fool me, Black!

HARRY, RON AND HERMIONE
Snape's off his rocker, we can't let him capture Black.
We know Black's innocent, but evidence we lack.
Dementors prowl the grounds, they want to eat his soul.
We can't allow this, Snape is headed for a fall!

SNAPE
I knew I'd find you here inside the Shrieking Shack.
Vengeance is in my grasp, I've finally captured Black.
Though you may sneer at me about my schoolboy grudge,
I know that I will get my just reward from Fudge.

(The trio knock Snape out with a well-timed Expelliarmus spell)

HARRY, RON AND HERMIONE
We just cannot let Snape capture Black, not tonight,
We just cannot let Snape get his way, not today,
We are obliged to rescue, rescue, rescue, rescue Black,
Yeah!

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk  Tue Apr 16 16:38:43 2002
From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (edisbevan)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:38:43 -0000
Subject: Snape, Logic,  and the PS/SS  bottle puzzle
Message-ID: <a9hk2j+dn7j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37888

A though arising from Snape's Deadly Bottles test in PS/SS 


Obviously the potions ( including nettle Wine?)  come into his 
special field.

But he also has to set up the logical puzzle on which bottle to chose 
tio go ahead or go back.

According to Hermione most wizards don't have an ounce of logic
in  them and so would be baffled by the challenge. Clearly Snape is 
fingered as unusual, being credited with having more than an ounce of 
a somewhat non-Wizarding skill.. 

Maybe this will be important at some stage?

By the way was there ever a proof that the puzzle as presented in 
PS/SS can actually be solved logically? Can't see anything in 
surviving archives or in the FAQs on this.  As far as I can see yes 
it can be solved logically, giving certain limiting assumptions and 
the additional information available to Hermione who can see the 
actual arrangement of bottles, But `no' if the information in
the clue poem is all we have to go on.

Edis 





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Wed Apr 17 11:17:00 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:17:00 -0000
Subject: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
In-Reply-To: <a9jjmb+l11k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9jljc+ss1t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37889


Ellen A.K.A. Moriel Malkin delurked to suggest:
> Why didn't Harry just use the summoning charm he had ready to 
> summon  the golden egg to himself?  If He could summon his broom 
> all the way from the castle, on a route that is certainly not 
> direct. (It had to come around the woods, after all.  Then Why not 
> just summon the egg  he wants from the other side of the enclosure.

Amy Z, "lupinesque" wrote:
> This is a really good question, answerable only, I think, by  
> "because dragon eggs are protected by very strong 
> magic and one can't just Summon one out of the nest, even if it's 
> just a golden fake."  JKR doesn't explain this; I'm just 
> speculating.  But it makes a lot of sense given how powerful 
> dragons' magic is, and it's the kind of thing that she might leave 
> out for the sake of compression.  The Triwizard Cup would be 
> unSummonable for the same reason.
>
> Amy Z
> who would really like to learn beekeeping

Allow me to put another theory forward. I've always felt a little 
stranged myself about the accio charm, but the last time we talked 
about it in the list we reached certain conclussions that can be 
used here. To be able to accio an object, you must be able to see it 
or be VERY familiar with it. Most of the time, you also need to say 
it's name, although (as always in Potterverse magic), sometimes the 
thinking of what you want is enough (like a "wingardium leviosa" to 
a troll's club). Thus, the cup idea is unreasonable: they haven't 
seen it yet (and even if they have, they are not familiar enough), 
and they cannot see it from the beggining of the maze (Harry could 
have used it to get it when he and Cedrid face each other at the 
end, but they were both too focused on running to it).

This theory runs over some hard ground on the first task, in which 
they probably could see the golden egg. Then again, maybe the dragon 
was sitting on them, which would make it much more difficult to see 
it or, even if they did see it, to aim with the spell through the 
powerful magical defenses of the dragon (remember, if it hits his 
skin, the spell is lost thanks to the amazing magical properties of 
the dragon itself). IIRC, Harry has to get away his dragon from the 
eggs before he takes a dip for the golden egg, so it's possible that 
the dragon was actually incubating them, although I also remeber 
Harry mentioning the egg at the beggining (no books available at the 
moment). A final reason: the dragon is not stupid. If one of his 
eggs starts to fly away, he would just grab it and put it back in 
its place.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf




From Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 11:41:12 2002
From: Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com (Aberforth's Goat)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:41:12 +0200
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pettigrew and the Sorting Hat
References: <a9ir8i+monu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c1e604$c70fbe80$0200a8c0@shasta>

No: HPFGUIDX 37890

Rita purred,

> Maybe I'll get around to writing something for the discussion
> questions. Meanwhile, I can add one: Why did the Sorting Hat
put him
> in Gryffindor?

Did it? I assume it did, but I don't believe it's ever been
proven. Here's an excerpt from my FAQ:

* * * * *

WHICH HOUSE WAS HE IN?

This leads to a further question: was Peter a Gryffindor evil
enough to betray his best friend or a Slytherin dumb enough to
have a pal called James Potter?

Jo has given us no conclusive proof - either in canon or in
interviews - that *any* of the marauders actually belonged to
Gryffindor.[1] However, granted the close parallels between Harry
and James (in particular their enmity with Snape and Draco), it
is very difficult to imagine James (at least) in any other house.

Also, Jo has said in on-line chats that Lily and Hagrid were
"naturally" from Gryffindor. It's hard to imagine how this
"naturally" could apply to Lilly and Hagrid but not to James -
nor for that matter to Remus and Sirius too.

Further, although fans have often speculated that the four
friends came from different houses, we have yet to see a close,
non-romantic friendship between members of differing houses -
particularly if one of the houses is Slytherin. [2] Thus, if at
least one of the marauders was in Gryffindor, chances are, they
all were.

However, if we assume that Pettigrew was a Gryffindor, what are
we to make of his betrayal? According to a group member named
Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch [sic], someone of Pettigrew's propensities

*can't* be a Gryffindor since their chief characteristic is
courage and he has none at all. He does however have cunning, he
could be a Slytherin."

Point taken: he could be a Slytherin. However, I think it is more
likely that Pettigrew is a Gryffindor, albeit a lapsed one - and
that his current excursion from the path of virtue doesn't count
against him. For one thing, many members would actually be
reassured to know that the Potterverse isn't governed by a sort
of inexorable moral apartheid in which eleven year olds sent to a
certain school class will spend the rest of their lives behaving
according to the virtues of that particular class. Somehow, we
have a hard time believing that a person like Jo Rowling could
create a world like that.

In any case, it is seems likely that Pettigrew will eventually
repent of his follies. One shouldn't forget the passage in PoA
where Harry regrets his decision to save Pettigrew's life.
Dumbledore disagrees:

[quote from same passage quoted in the discussion question]

This leaves a strong impression that Pettigrew will not spend the
rest of his life with his head stuck in a black hat. Caius
Marcius  has gone so far as to predict that Pettigrew will give
his life to save Harry (5123). Naturally, Pettigrew's true fans
protested vehemently and conclusively disproved this theory - but
since they don't exist, Caius Marcius could well be right. [3]


[1] In fact, she doesn't even call them "Marauders"; but since
everyone else does, I will too.
[2] Yes. Hormonally enhanced friendships between houses are
common. However, the gates of Slytherin appear - so far - to have
blocked out even the feral scent of love.
[3] However, anyone who objects to such bloodthirsty scenarios
may prefer my own more peaceable version: 5405.

* * * * *

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray)
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that
may not have been bravery...."





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 17 11:29:36 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:29:36 -0000
Subject: FILK: Capture Black
In-Reply-To: <a9h8rb+7uvq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9jmb0+kgnc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37891

Oh.  Right.  Two minutes after I repost, the original comes through.

<bangs head on keyboard>  I hate Yahoo.

Sorry about that, everyone.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 17 13:41:31 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:41:31 -0000
Subject: Snape, Logic,  and the PS/SS  bottle puzzle
In-Reply-To: <a9hk2j+dn7j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9ju2b+5d55@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37892

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "edisbevan" <A.E.B.Bevan at o...> wrote:

> According to Hermione most wizards don't have an ounce of logic
> in  them and so would be baffled by the challenge. Clearly Snape is 
> fingered as unusual, being credited with having more than an ounce
of 
> a somewhat non-Wizarding skill.. 
> 
> Maybe this will be important at some stage?

It certainly seems to fit in with his general ability to "put two and
two together as only Snape can."  I'm not sure how important it will
be to the overall plot -- I think the puzzle scene in PS/SS was
intended to highlight Hermione's logical ability rather than Snape's
-- but it is suggestive.

It's ironic, though: Snape seems to be one of the few wizards capable
of logical thinking, but he's also more likely than most wizards to
let his emotions get in the way of his intellect.  It's yet another
stereotype that he breaks: fiction tends to present logical characters
as unemotional, and vice versa, but Snape is both logical and
violently passionate.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From maidne at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 01:19:36 2002
From: maidne at yahoo.com (maidne)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:19:36 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, Flamel, and Fawkes
Message-ID: <a9iij8+usun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37893

I know there've been tons of discussions about Dumbledore and Flamel, 
and Dumbledore and Fawkes, but I was just musing about Flamel this 
morning, his age, and whether he has actually died yet or not.  I 
just suddenly wondered if there could be any connection between 
Flamel and Fawkes (flame/phoenix?)  I've been all through the FAQ's 
and the lexicon and didn't find any discussion on it there.  Any 
ideas, or is it just that there's no discussion on it because it's 
too farfetched or stupid to talk about?  :)




From arclevel at mtu.edu  Tue Apr 16 14:12:36 2002
From: arclevel at mtu.edu (arcleveland)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:12:36 -0000
Subject: Draco and redemption potential (long)
Message-ID: <a9hbgn+2jcc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37894

I've been browsing the archives for a few weeks, but this is my
first post.  As a quick introduction, my name is Amanda, but I'll
probably go by Manda to reduce confusion.  I'm a big Snape fan, 
though there aren't any characters that I truly don't like. 
Reading the recent discussions, I decided it would be a good 
idea to start with some nice, soothing Draco-talk before introducing 
my more 
 interpretive 
 theory on Snape's cat.  I need
to do a bit more shopping at the local armory before that one 
will be quite presentable.  A bit of a warning, I tend to see 
things from lots of different angles.  Because of that, I tend to 
play Devil's Advocate against my own theories quite a bit.  I can 
also be a bit, um, verbose.

The first thing to remember about Draco is that we see him entirely 
through Harry's limited POV, perhaps more so than most of the
other characters.  We have a couple scenes where Draco isn't 
aware of Harry, but both are brief and occur when Draco's only 
twelve.  I am of the opinion that Draco has to have a large amount 
of depth that we haven't seen.  People are complicated, even if
they aren't good.  Since JKR apparently has constructed
backstories and personalities for even her minor characters, I 
think there has to be more to Draco than the little bit that he 
shows Harry, and that we thus see.  I would rather hope that 
people don't judge me by the perceptions of my worst enemies.  

That said, it remains to be seen whether Draco's unseen sides 
reveal him to be a really sweet, caring guy, who's just afraid 
to let the Gryffindors realize it, or whether his only concern in 
life is that so far, he hasn't gotten a chance to get out there 
and start ridding the world of Mudbloods himself.  I'd like to
see more depth to Draco's character, but I'm not real sure how
we'll see it, given the perspective.    

Melanie reasoned, 
"You don't put in sympathy for characters that you don't want the 
readers to like on some level. Thus, I think that Draco will turn 
good."

	That makes sense, but I don't think that making us like a 
character on some level necessarily implies that the character will 
be good.  After all, we were made to feel an awful lot of sympathy 
for Crouch, Jr, in the Pensieve scene as well as the conversation 
with Sirius.  In many ways, it would fit with the increasing moral 
complexity to see a character who is sympathetic or rather likeable, 
but who is ultimately on the side of evil.  Sort of the opposite of 
the picture we're given of Snape, so far.  I don't think we
have that with Draco yet, though.  He's still pretty flat and 
unlikable at this point, IMO.

	A number of people have, quite understandably, suggested 
that Draco's comment on the train shows that he's completely
serious about being evil.  Finwitch also interpreted that quote 
as a death threat aimed against the trio.

Rohit said:
"What he said about Hermione, Ron and then WHAT HE SAID ABOUT
CEDRIC was so cold-blooded, so atrocious, so disgusting, it made me 
lose any hope I had for his redemption and any sympathy for him at 
all."

	Well, let's take a look at this scenario.  First, when Malfoy 
enters their compartment, he and his buddies are described as 
looking "more pleased with themselves, more arrogant and more 
menacing, than Harry had ever seen them."  In the next paragraph,
it says that Malfoy has a smirk "quivering on his lips" (both
quotes GoF, US Edition, p 729). Perhaps it's just the word choice 
there, but I'm a bit confused as to how a "quivering"
smirk leads to the appearance initially described.  To me, 
quivering indicates a *lack* of confidence, not an excess of it.

	Then we get to Malfoy's actual distressing statements.
"'You've picked the losing side, Potter! 
 Too late now,
Potter!  [Ron and Hermione will] be the first to go, now the 
Dark Lord's back!  Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first!  Well ? 
second ? Diggory was the f ?`"  (GoF, US, 729).

	Umm, yes.  Well, I certainly won't argue that they're 
disgusting things to say.  Chilling is the first word that comes to 
mind, personally.  It is not, however, a death threat.  A death 
threat would be saying that he would take action to see to it that 
one or more of them was killed.  This is, well, more of an 
observation, disturbing as it is.  The fact is, the statement about 
Cedric is literally true, and the one about Ron and Hermione is a 
valid prediction ? they really are likely to be among the top 
targets.  That is true whether or not Draco is planning to take part 
in it.  In a way, it could almost be taken as an incredibly twisted 
warning.  I certainly don't believe that's Draco's
intention at *all*, but you could take it that way. 

	However, I don't believe that this quote makes Draco 
hopeless.  It could make him a teenaged kid who has never had to come 
to terms with death and doesn't grasp the hard reality of the 
situation.  He's glad to see the Dark Lord back because he's
always been told that the Dark Lord was good, and so far he's 
never seen anything to make him question that.  He's excited
about the possible results in relation to Ron and Hermione because
they're his enemies and, again, he doesn't really understand
death yet. He just thinks it would be them getting theirs, so 
to speak.  

I firmly believe that Draco, whatever else you think 
about his upbringing, has been brought up to hate all Mudbloods 
and the Weasleys in particular and hasn't questioned this.  
IIRC, he never calls *Harry* a Muggle-lover, despite the fact that 
Harry would fit the description as well as Ron.  Anyway, that 
interpretation of the situation would make Draco sincere, and 
therefore really disturbing, but wouldn't put him beyond hope.

	Another possibility, based on my memories of being a 
teenager, is that nearly everyone I knew was putting on a front of 
some sort.  Perhaps the "quivering" gets to me, or maybe
it's the sheer bravado that goes into those statements and their 
extremity, but I wonder if we can be sure that he's completely 
sincere.  I don't mean, necessarily, that he believes the
opposite of what he's saying, or even doesn't believe it. 

More, I wonder about the level of confidence.  In my experience, 
people who showed the most confidence were often trying to cover 
up insecurity.  Maybe he's somewhat confused or not really sure 
what to think.  He certainly doesn't want anyone else to know
about it, though, and might overcompensate by acting as confident 
and gleeful as possible.  Again, this doesn't excuse the 
statements, but it would suggest that there's more to Draco, and 
that we can have hope for some of it. (I wrote a very short 
fanfic a couple days ago that explores this possibility ? it was
a bit disturbing how easily I could put myself in those shoes.)  

	Then, of course, there's the completely valid possibility 
that he knows and understands death just fine, and is perfectly 
sincere in what he's saying.  He could care less that Diggory is 
dead, genuinely want to see Ron and Hermione dead, and is off home to 
sign up at the next Death Eater recruitment drive.  In that case, 
well, there's not a whole lot of hope unless something changes. 
And, of course, something *could* change.  Look at Snape.

And from Uncmark:
"Any discussion of Draco's redemption (which I think would be a
great twist) MUST include consuderation of Draco's relationship with 
Daddy Lucius."

<snip good analysis of Draco and Lucius's relative wrongs>

"Draco, for all his badness, seems to be following his Dad's
example and trying to satisfy what he has been taught was the 
qualities of a great wizard."

The post goes on to illustrate a possible scenario in which LV and 
Lucius, between them, make Draco question his opinions of them.

	I do agree that if Draco is to be redeemed in the sense that 
we're looking for, it will probably have to involve a separation
from his father.  Moreover, I don't particularly believe that
Draco is abused or hates his father ? if he did, then I don't
know why he would so strongly espouse his father's beliefs, at 
least publicly, even when his father isn't around.  The scenarios 
that interest me would be in Lucius is caught doing something 
atrocious, while clearly not under Imperius, and goes to jail or is 
killed while at a Death Eater raid, preferably in self-defense by an 
intended victim than an Auror, which could merely send Draco on a 
vendetta.  

Another possibility is that Draco sees or otherwise learns of Lucius 
killing a friend of Draco's ? or for that matter, a friend of 
Lucius's ? or doing something else that drives home to Draco
what the Death Eaters, and his father in particular, are really 
about.  The possibility in which LV kills Lucius or forces him to 
kill Narcissa seems interesting to me, but unlikely, given that LV 
doesn't seem quite hasty enough to kill his left-hand man (my 
presumption) or drive him to the other side.

	Personally, I don't know which of these possibilities I 
believe.  Mostly, I hope that we see added depth to Draco, though I 
doubt we'll ever get full passage into what's going on in his
head.  I would really like to see Draco realize the seriousness of 
the Death Eaters and take some time to examine himself and question 
his beliefs, to see if that's something he really wants to be
involved in.  Of course, that could potentially be even more 
interesting if he does all that and then decides that he really does 
want to be a Death Eater.  Deeply disturbing, but certainly 
interesting.

	Well, I was going to include some opinions on Crabbe and 
Goyle, Snape, and Slytherin House as a whole, but this is a lot 
longer than I intended, so I'll put them off for a while.

	Manda (who wants to finish shopping for canons for her 
Snape's cat theory ? the poor thing's really not a kitten
anymore ? but ought to study her P. Chem.)






From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 16 10:42:03 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:42:03 -0000
Subject: Snape and Slytherin; various redemptions
In-Reply-To: <Springmail.0994.1018914272.0.34202700@webmail.atl.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a9gv5s+g6mf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37895

Porphyria said, in respnse to my saying:
> > Actually, I've been wondering if that isn't going to be a problem for Snape 
> > in the coming books.  If Snape has indeed gone back to spy on Voldemort, 
> > he has to maintain the appearance of being a secret Death Eater - there 
> > are too many children of DEs in Slytherin house to allow him to show 
> > sympathy for Dumbledore's side without jeopardizing his cover. 
> 
> I do agree with both you and Marina that it is, or should be, his job to cough up some decent advice for any student-at-risk asking him for it. Assuming he is going to be spying in future books, I think the only way he could help someone would be to swear to secrecy about it.  Of course he'd have to suss out whether one of them was only pretending to turn against LV in order to suss out Snape's loyalties in turn, but he's perfectly capable of doing that. That's his specialty. 

I'm not sure it would be so simple.  I'm thinking of the scene at the
 end of The Sounds of Music, where Captain Von Trapp is trying to 
get Liesel's boyfriend to ditch the Nazis and come with them.  You 
can see the kid starting to come around, and then he realises what 
he's about to do and tries to turn the Von Trapps in.  

Now, obviously I'm not arguing the emotional honesty of The 
Sounds of Music, but I think that scene is rather accurate with 
regards to the kind of dilemma the Slytherin kids might come to.  
When I say that some kids might teeter over the edge, I'm not 
talking about the ones who are already in opposition to DEs.  Snape 
doesn't have to worry about them.  I thinking about the kids who 
really don't know which side the right one is, and need the guidance 
of someone they trust.  

In that situation, they may very well turn on the person trying to help 
them for making them feel something that's contrary to what they 
think is right.  Snape can stipulate secrecy as much as he wants, but 
if some kid he tried to bring back to the light side suddenly turns back, 
he'll be as good as dead.  In this case, Snape can't be expected to 
know how the kids are leaning because the kids don't know themselves.
> 
> OTOH, Abigail said:
> 
> > I don't happen to be one of the people who believe that Snape secretly 
> > hates Draco or that he's trying to weaken the next generation of DE by 
> > being soft on the Slytherins. 
> 
> Since I've argued just this myself in the past, for the sake of consistency I'll add that I don't see any evidence that he's doing anything *other than* weakening them, whether he means to or not. You all have made me feel very guilty about imagining that Snape intends harm to his own house, but redemption-speculation aside, they do get more hopeless every year, don't they? Meanwhile Harry is the one throwing off Imperius Curses and standing down Voldemort in duels. This takes strength of will, and practice at standing up to antagonism. I'd like to see Draco attempt something like that. 

You do have a point, in that Slytherin seems to be made up of weaklings, 
but that might very well be a complaint laid against JKR rather than Snape.  
I'm not the first person to feel that descriptions of Slytherin are far too 
one-dimensional.  The only excuses I can come up with are that the books 
are being told from Harry's point of view, and he (a) sees Slytherin as the 
main competition to his house and therefore thinks nothing but the worst
 of them and (b) seems to concentrate on Draco as the main representative 
of Slytherin (he's certainly the Slyth kid Harry has the most contact with) 
and that must color his impressions.  

Also, I think Draco's dominance in the house is not helping.  Draco is a 
spoiled rich kid who thinks he's entitled to everything.  He encourages an 
environment of toadying.  Given how powerful he seems to be in the 
house, and given Slytherin's relative isolation from the rest of the school, 
Draco could be adversely affecting the kind of kids Slyterin is producing.  
Of course, this could only be true for kids younger than Draco, but we 
hardly ever see Slytherin kids outside of Harry's year anyway - the only 
one I can think of is Marcus Flint.  There might be some halfway decent 
Slyth kids in the years above Draco. 

Or maybe these are simply the people that Snape thinks are going to be 
successful in the world.  If Snape is nothing else, he's very good at coming 
to the wrong conclusions.  Maybe he thinks he's doing well by his house, and 
has a hard lesson coming.   Either way, I can't believe that Snape is deliberately 
sabotaging his own kids - that seems to be in direct opposition to his duties 
as head of house.
> 
> Abigail also asks:
> 
> > ...what makes Sirius so reluctant to believe that Snape was a DE?  Is it just 
> > because Dumbledore trusts him?
> 
> I didn't get the impression that he was reluctant to believe Snape was a DE; he was just pointing out that Snape had never been *accused* of it, while the other five were. Sirius can't understand why Dumbledore would hire a former DE, but I don't think he feels this way in defense of Snape; he just can't see why a former torturer-murderer would be allowed to teach little kids. 

Well, I went back and checked GoF, and Sirius does more or less say 
that he's reluctant to believe that Dumbledore would hire a former DE.  
Silly Abigail.  But that leads me to wonder what Sirius' attitude towards 
Snape is going to be in the coming books now that he knows about his 
past (apart from the blinding hatered, I mean.)  Will Sirius defer to 
Dumbledore's judgement, or will he, like Snape did towards Lupin in PoA, 
harbor great suspicion towards Snape?

And then Catlady wrote about Snape being unable to help 
Slythering kids in trouble:

>He *could* tip off Dumbledore to send someone else (ideally, a 
Slytherin Old Boy or Old Girl) to recruit the wavering Slyth kid to 
the Light Side.

Well, that's what I meant by positive Slytherin role models.  Given 
how isolated the Slyth kids are at Hogwarts, they would never 
accept help from another house, and maybe not even from 
Dumbledore.  The only problem with this is finding the older Slyth 
kid to do the job, assuming there are any good ones left, and then 
recruiting *them* without blowing Snape's cover, which brings 
us right back to the beginning (because even the older, good Slyths 
are likely to be suspicious of Dumbledore.)

So I think Snape's in a bit of a tricky situation, and I hope that gets 
dealt with in the coming books (plus I'd like to see Slytherin kids 
who are a bit more three-dimensional.)

Abigail





From ch001d4564 at blueyonder.co.uk  Wed Apr 17 14:23:48 2002
From: ch001d4564 at blueyonder.co.uk (Martin Hooper)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:23:48 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
In-Reply-To: <a9jl0u+nsua@eGroups.com>
References: <a9jjmb+l11k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020417152216.00a27c40@pop3.blueyonder.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 37896

At 12:07 17/04/02, Anglinsbees wrote:
>Ah- but he <did> summon it into his hand in the cemetary- in order
>to portkey back with Cedrics body.  My problem with this scene is
>that in this instnce, the portkey seems to work differently than the
>way portkeys did previously.  If a portkey takes you back whre it
>came from the second time you touch it, it would create all sorts of
>handling problems at the World cup- and they handled the used
>portkeys vary casually, tossing them in a box.

Just a thought but maybe they did - meybe they were activated so that it 
sent you back on a time-delay spell...  After the World Cup it would have 
automatically turned itself back on set to the place it came from.

Hope that makes sense... ;)


Martin J Hooper
http://www.martinjh.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
AIM: Martinjh99 ICQ: 43933602

  ----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.346 / Virus Database: 194 - Release Date: 10/04/02


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 17 15:27:10 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:27:10 -0000
Subject: Draco and redemption potential (long)
In-Reply-To: <a9hbgn+2jcc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9k48e+hr0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37897

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "arcleveland" <arclevel at m...> wrote:

> 	However, I don't believe that this quote makes Draco 
> hopeless.  It could make him a teenaged kid who has never had to
come 
> to terms with death and doesn't grasp the hard reality of the 
> situation.  He's glad to see the Dark Lord back because he's
> always been told that the Dark Lord was good, and so far he's 
> never seen anything to make him question that.  

Hi, Manda!  Welcome to the list.  You make a lot of interesting points
here, and I'm not quite ready to deal with them all, but I do want to
address this one.

First of all, I agree that Draco does come across as a kid who doesn't
really understand what death and suffering is really about (which is
one of the reasons why I don't buy the "he's abused" theory).  But if
Cedric Diggory's death hasn't made him start questioning if Voldemort
is really good, then what the heck will it take?  Cedric was not a
Mudblood, and while he may have been a Muggle-lover, we don't see him
conspicuously hanging around with any Muggle-borns the way Ron and
Harry do.  He's a nice, pureblood wizard from an inoffensive house. 
There's no indication that he ever had any problems with Draco.  Now
he's dead just 'cause he happened to be standing next to Harry at the
wrong time -- and Draco doesn't seem to see anything wrong with that. 
Would it have been different if he actually saw Cedric's dead body, or
heard Voldemort coldly saying "Kill the spare?"  I don't know.

That said, I don't think any of Draco's actions to date make him
irredeemable.  Snape, after all, has probably done a lot worse than
make himself obnoxious in a train compartment, and he got a shot at
redemption, so why not Draco?  But it would take loads and loads of
character development, since so far I think he hasn't been shown as
anything more than a shallow bully.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Apr 17 16:01:11 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:01:11 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #2 - Pettigrew!
In-Reply-To: <00ab01c1e58c$97aaf470$0200a8c0@shasta>
Message-ID: <a9k687+il4q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37898

>>Dr. Nel asked:

Consider the character of Wormtail (aka Peter Pettigrew). What
motivates him? <<<

I think the key to Peter's character is this passage: 

"Pettigrew burst into tears. It was horrible to watch: he looked like 
an oversized, balding baby, cowering on the floor."
	                        ---PoA, chapter 19

IMO, Pettigrew is very much a baby. He doesn't understand or 
want responsibility or independence. He simply can't conceive of  
existing apart from a protector.  It's ironic that his refusal to grow 
up, a la *Peter* Pan, eventually puts him in the position of 
nursemaid to the infantile Voldemort. 

I don't think this refusal to grow up indicates a want of courage. 
Peter the putative Gryffindor is actually quite bold in defense of 
his protectors: he attacks Goyle, who must be a hundred times 
his size, he takes on Crouch Sr, whom Sirius says is quite 
powerful magically, and, as others have noted, he has the 
physical courage to cut off his own hand. 

It seems  that Peter's mother, at least, was strongly attached to 
him. Perhaps Peter's parents overindulged him the way the 
Dursleys indulge Dudley, and Peter simply never learned the 
value of independence. 

I think that  Harry will be a catalyst. Because of Harry,  Peter will 
realize that he can act on his own behalf. This action will repay 
the life debt and be as crucial to Voldemort's downfall as Peter's 
betrayal was to James'.

Pippin




From draco382 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 16 02:13:50 2002
From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:13:50 -0000
Subject: PlayStation? (Was: Sirius Black's math mistake?)
In-Reply-To: <a9fuki+8m4m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9g1cu+h9is@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37899

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" <jferer at y...> wrote:
> Jamie:"When Sirius speaks to Peter (p. 370) he says, 
> "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years, they say he's half 
> dead."  As far as I can tell, Voldemort can only have been in 
hiding 
> for twelve to thirteen years, if the infant Harry defeated him on 
> Halloween, 1981.  It may be just a rough estimation on Sirius's 
part, 
> but why would he be so unspecific when he  clearly knows exactly 
how 
> many years he spent in prison?"
> 
> It doesn't seem likely, but it may be that Sirius is counting some 
> time before Voldemort was defeated as being "in hiding." The 
obvious 
> objection to that is that Voldemort was at his most powerful before 
he 
> came calling at Godric's Hollow.  Otherwise, I don't see an 
> explanation.


Hi, I have been "lurking" for quite a long time now, but since the 
topic of time discrepancy came up, I thought I would throw my two 
cents in.  There is a scene in GoF where Harry writes a letter to 
Sirius saying:
"...They told him they'd have to cut his pocket money if he keeps 
doing it, so he got really angry and chucked his PlayStation out of 
the window" --Goblet of Fire, pg 27)
Believe it or not, that actually stood out to me for some reason.  I 
looked this up and apparently, Sony released PlayStation in the U.S 
and UK only in 1995, and I'm guessing that this scene (which happens 
during the summer right after their third year) is in 1994?  oh 
well...I guess this goes to prove that...I have entirely too much 
time on my hands.  :-)

~P




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Apr 16 15:17:35 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:17:35 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Book 5 Discussion to OT Chatter or Announcements
Message-ID: <a9hfaf+potq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37900

Just a quick reminder from Hexquarters that discussions of possible 
release dates for OoP should take place off the main list. 

To reiterate, HP-Announcements is the place for confirmed information 
about the OoP release date. This includes messages with a link to a 
*real* news report from a reputable and verifiable source, not just 
rumor and speculation. The Announcements list is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfGU-Announcements/

OT-Chatter is the place for OoP handwringing, hand-holding, wild-
eyed speculation, wishful thinking, insider information, 12-step 
programs and the like. The OT-Chatter list is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/

Thanks for your cooperation.

Cindy
--The Magical Moderators






From anglinsbees at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 08:07:39 2002
From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (anglinsbees)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:07:39 -0000
Subject: Ship FAQ's ???
Message-ID: <a9jagb+87c7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37901

Hey all.

 I'm retuening after a LOOOONG time with limited or no computer 
acess. (Damn Hewlet Packard <kick> But wahat other type of computer 
*could* I get but another HP?)

Could someone please post a FAQ type summary of the various current 
ships/ theoies/ acronyms floating about.  I think I have Lolipops 
and toadkeeper figured out, but I'd like a handy dandy reference to 
the other, smaller ships in the water.

Thanks!

Ellen AKA Moriel Malkin
A pottering beekeeper




From cmf_usc at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 20:56:15 2002
From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:56:15 -0000
Subject: Harry's new pet?
In-Reply-To: <a9j8g7+3jm3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9knhf+e2nv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37902

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ellen "anglinsbees" <anglinsbees at y...> 
wrote:

> Of the beasts in "Fantastic Beasts" I think a runespoor would make 
a 
> great pet for Harry. (It is a three headed serpent that was, in the 
> past, a favored pet of Parseltongues. The three heads are all 
> intellegent, and talk to one another.)  

A three headed snake!  That's interesting... I bet that will show up, 
even if Harry doesn't get one as a pet.  

> I do agree however, that it seems very likely that Fawkes has 
picked Harry as his next owner, after Dumbledore.  <snip>

Me too, now.  Don't know why I didn't really think of that before!
 
> This raises the question- Is Dumbledore going to die?  

Oh yeah, IMHO.  In book 6, I think.. to really raise the stakes for 
book 7.  (I think that _all_ of Harry's parental/protector figures 
are going to be dead before this is over...)

> Traditionally, there has only ever been one, Pheonix at a time. The 
> bird renews itself from its own ashes, but in traditional 
Mythology, 
> there was only one (It was considered the "King" of the birds by 
the 
> writers of medieval bestiaries, just as the lion was the king of 
the 
> animals, and the Dragon or Basilisk is the King of the Serpents.)  
 
Ooh! So, Harry has killed one King of Serpents, out-manuevered 
another... Really Impressed the King of Birds.. as a Gryffindor and a 
Leo, might he represent the King of Animals then?  

Caroline from the U of South Carolina 






From melodylemming at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 17 15:44:59 2002
From: melodylemming at hotmail.com (Melody B.)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:44:59 -0400
Subject: Voldemort and Pettigrew (was: Pettigrew)
Message-ID: <F6TsvoXHsk0tVvFncie000031e4@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37903

Tex wrote:
>...Not to mention having to nursemaid baby Voldemort over all
>that time, plus milk Nagini at regular intervals.  But it keeps
>him alive, one day at a time.

Sudden thought: Does this mean that Voldemort is in debt to Pettigrew?

Pettigrew is the one who has been keeping Voldemort alive, with the help of 
Nagini. Voldemort also would not have been able to create his new body 
without P. -- Sure, he could have used someone else's hand, but then he'd be 
in debt to that other person.

Any ideas on this?

Melody

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com





From merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 17 19:53:22 2002
From: merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com (sherlock_2040)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:53:22 -0000
Subject: Could Snape have (or has had) a mental/personalitiy disorder?
Message-ID: <a9kjri+m28l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37904

I had a nice hour all to myself in the school library today, and I 
was casually browsing the books and came across one all about mind 
disorders (centering on Freud's theories). Since I'm planning on 
studying psychology at college, it was quite an interesting read. 

I came across a condition called 'Schizoid Personality Disorder' 
(nothing to do with schizophrenia). Noting down a few of the key 
symptoms my strange mind began thinking. Is it possible that Snape 
may suffer or may have suffered from any sort of mental or 
personality disorder? Could it be a condition that has never been 
recognised and one that Snape fears being told he is suffering from? 

Personally, I believe Snape might be a bit paranoid but there could 
perhaps be more to his nature than just he is bitter, confused and 
won't allow himself to be happy.

Having a quick search on www.mentalhealth.com was a gem in 
information, which I present here:

PERSONALITY DISODER:
A personality disorder is a severe disturbance in the 
characterological constitution and behavioural tendencies of the 
individual, usually involving several areas of the personality, and 
nearly always associated with considerable personal and social 
disruption. Personality disorder tends to appear in late childhood or 
adolescence and continues to be manifest into adulthood. It is 
therefore unlikely that the diagnosis of personality disorder will be 
appropriate before the age of 16 or 17 years.

SCHIZOID PERSONALITY DISORDER
Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following: 

(a) few, if any, activities, provide pleasure; 
(b) emotional coldness, detachment or flattened affectivity; 
(c) limited capacity to express either warm, tender feelings or anger 
towards others; 
(d) apparent indifference to either praise or criticism; 
(e) little interest in having sexual experiences with another person 
(taking into account age); 
(f) almost invariable preference for solitary activities; 
(g) excessive preoccupation with fantasy and introspection; 
(h) lack of close friends or confiding relationships (or having only 
one) and of desire for such relationships; 
(i) marked insensitivity to prevailing social norms and conventions. 

PARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDER:
Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following: 

(a) excessive sensitiveness to setbacks and rebuffs; 
(b) tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive 
insults and injuries or slights; 
(c) suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by 
misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or 
contemptuous; 
(d) a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping 
with the actual situation; 
(e) recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual 
fidelity of spouse or sexual partner; 
(f) tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a 
persistent self-referential attitude; 
(g) preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations 
of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large. 

DISSOCIAL (Antisocial) PERSONALITY DISORDER
Personality disorder, usually coming to attention because of a gross 
disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and 
characterized by at least 3 of the following: 

(a) callous unconcern for the feelings of others; 
(b) gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard 
for social norms, rules and obligations; 
(c) incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no 
difficulty in establishing them; 
(d) very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for 
discharge of aggression, including violence; 
(e) incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, 
particularly punishment; 
(f) marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible 
rationalizations, for the behaviour that has brought the patient into 
conflict with society. 

There may also be persistent irritability as an associated feature. 
Conduct disorder during childhood and adolescence, though not 
invariably present, may further support the diagnosis. 

What do you think?

Steph






From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 22:25:21 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:25:21 -0000
Subject: Voldemort and Pettigrew (was: Pettigrew)
In-Reply-To: <F6TsvoXHsk0tVvFncie000031e4@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9ksoh+qp7g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37907

Melody:
> Sudden thought: Does this mean that Voldemort is in debt to 
Pettigrew?
> 
> Pettigrew is the one who has been keeping Voldemort alive, with the 
help of 
> Nagini. Voldemort also would not have been able to create his new 
body 
> without P. -- Sure, he could have used someone else's hand, but 
then he'd be 
> in debt to that other person.

For one thing - he could not use someone else's hand: it had to be 
*willingly* given - he was immortal, but weak;

I'd say he owes Pettigrew a debt-- but it's *not* a life-debt. He was 
an immortal - now he's a mortal again!

But Pettigrew is in debt to Harry (I doubt V knows that) -- wonder 
what effect that fact has to Voldemort.

-- Finwitch





From Kimstr at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 17 22:45:11 2002
From: Kimstr at hotmail.com (archgarchus)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:45:11 -0000
Subject: Permission to Board LOLLIPOPS
Message-ID: <a9kttn+94pe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37908


Dear Tabouli and others:

  Requesting permission to board the good ship LOLLIPOPS. Have served 
on similar vessels in the past in foreign (other chat room) waters. Am
greatly admiring arguments (esp. 28550). Would also like to add to 
the Snape/Christmas discussion. Remember that Snape DOES share 
Christmas dinner with Dumbledore, McGonagall, Harry, etc...in PoA 
(who could forget the vulture hat!).

  Another Snape/Lily parallel that I am not sure has been mentioned is
Snape/Lily/James = Heathcliff/Cathy/Edgar in Emily Bronte's WUTHERING 
HEIGHTS. Heathcliff (the brooding antihero) is rejected by Cathy and 
makes the life of her daughter (by Edgar)  miserable. I do not need 
to illustrate the obvious parallels with HARRY POTTER. If this has 
been mentioned in the past, forgive my redundancy. Am awaiting with 
baited breath permission to board this marvellous vessel.

                             Archgarchus

PS. What is this other ship I hear about, the FLIRT...? Help!





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Apr 17 23:17:17 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:17:17 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS & Snape's Motivation
In-Reply-To: <1a5.d94a5a.29ee7e1a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9kvpt+95nh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37909

Debbie wrote:

>Getting the Marauders in trouble 
> is not going to endear him to Lily; 


How very interesting!  All the times I thought about LOLLIPOPs, even 
taking it for granted at times, I never really considered this.  I'm 
sure Tabouli did <bg>, but I didn't.

But which way does this cut, though?  Would Snape want to have his 
fingerprints on an attempt to get James in trouble?  Wouldn't this 
necessarily get back to Lily and cause her to see him as a rather 
oily, gliding, prowling, slimy snake in the grass?

Or does it mean that Snape developed his Love of Lily later in their 
Hogwarts days -- sometime after the Prank?  Is Snape's Love of Lily 
simply wanting something he couldn't have just because his rival had 
it?  Have the LOLLIPOPS crewmembers come to an accord on this point?

Oh, dear.  I find my rather limited faith in LOLLIPOPS shaken to its 
very foundation, and that's saying something.

Cindy -- who has way too many badges and berths to mention 




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Apr 17 19:56:26 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Wherefore Art Thou Draco
In-Reply-To: <a9k48e+hr0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020417195626.23848.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37910

Because Lucius Said So.

--- marinafrants <rusalka at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "arcleveland"
> <arclevel at m...> wrote:
> 
> > 	However, I don't believe that this quote makes
> Draco 
> > hopeless.  It could make him a teenaged kid who
> has never had to
> come 
> > to terms with death and doesn't grasp the hard
> reality of the 
> > situation.  He's glad to see the Dark Lord back
> because he's
> > always been told that the Dark Lord was good, and
> so far he's 
> > never seen anything to make him question that.  
> 
--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants"
<rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "arcleveland"
<arclevel at m...> wrote:
> 
> > 	However, I don't believe that this quote makes
Draco 
> > hopeless.  It could make him a teenaged kid who
has never had to
> come 
> > to terms with death and doesn't grasp the hard
reality of the 
> > situation.  He's glad to see the Dark Lord back
because he's
> > always been told that the Dark Lord was good, and
so far he's 
> > never seen anything to make him question that.  
> 
> Hi, Manda!  Welcome to the list.  You make a lot of
interesting points
> here, and I'm not quite ready to deal with them all,
but I do want to
> address this one.
> 
> First of all, I agree that Draco does come across as
a kid who doesn't
> really understand what death and suffering is really
about (which is
> one of the reasons why I don't buy the "he's abused"
theory).  But if
> Cedric Diggory's death hasn't made him start
questioning if Voldemort
> is really good, then what the heck will it take? 
Cedric was not a
> Mudblood, and while he may have been a Muggle-lover,
we don't see him
> conspicuously hanging around with any Muggle-borns
the way Ron and
> Harry do.  He's a nice, pureblood wizard from an
inoffensive house. 
> There's no indication that he ever had any problems
with Draco.  Now
> he's dead just 'cause he happened to be standing
next to Harry at the
> wrong time -- and Draco doesn't seem to see anything
wrong with that. 
> Would it have been different if he actually saw
Cedric's dead body, or
> heard Voldemort coldly saying "Kill the spare?"  I
don't know.
> 
> That said, I don't think any of Draco's actions to
date make him
> irredeemable.  Snape, after all, has probably done a
lot worse than
> make himself obnoxious in a train compartment, and
he got a shot at
> redemption, so why not Draco?  But it would take
loads and loads of
> character development, since so far I think he
hasn't been shown as
> anything more than a shallow bully.


 
 Marina (she of the FILKs) wrote: 
> First of all, I agree that Draco does come across as
> a kid who doesn't
> really understand what death and suffering is really
> about (which is
> one of the reasons why I don't buy the "he's abused"
> theory).  

A few points on the Abused!Draco question:
1. Psychological abuse and physical abuse could cause
different "reactions" to this sort of setup. In other
words, if Lucius is psychologically abusive to his son
(continuously degrades or belittles the other or
accuses the other of being stupid, unattractive, a bad
person, any similar fault, the pattern of behaviour
and attitudes towards a child that endangers or
impairs the child's emotional or intellectual
development.  Can include spurning, terrorizing,
isolating, exploiting/corrupting or denying emotional
responsiveness, or controling the child through
promises or threats) then Draco wouldn't have the same
understanding of death and violence that physically
abused children develop, but he also wouldn't
necessarily have been able to develop the emotional
well-being and perspective to think things through on
his own, independend of the prism that Lucius has
taught him through. 

I think that there would be no argument here with the
following sentence: Draco has emulated or mimicked
Lucius behaviour or thinking on various issues.

Clearly, he does when he spouts out against Weasleys
in general, or Arthur or Ron in particular. He does
when voicing sentiments against muggle-born students
(or do you think he developed that all on his own
during PS/SS?). He does when he's speaking out against
Hagrid in PoA - it's clear that Lucius is spearheading
the prosecution (does he still want power at Hogwarts
even after he's off the board? And does anyone, other
than the trio and a few teachers, know eexactly why
he's off the board? It's never made clear). 

Now, it's not unusual for children to say what their
parents do - children usually model their thoughts and
behaviours on their parents' until they are old enough
to think for themselves - usually, this happens upon
adolescence.  It's not uncommon for children, before
they reach the teen yars of rebellion, to see their
parents as infallible and beyond contradiction.  Draco
seems to be stuck in this stage - and if he's
surrounded by people in his house who also come from
homes where Muggleborns are frowned on and Dumbledore
is criticised and "liberal" or "muggle-loving"
perspectives are laughed at, it would be very
difficult to see things in another way. 

People have argued that at Hogwarts, where he's
exposed to kids from Muggle backgrounds who are
smarter than him (like Hermione) and where he is
exposed to Dumbledore's "Muggle-loving", he should see
that the world is not what Lucius described. BUt when
is he to see this? Only at the end of Book 4 does
Dumbledore ever talk about Voldemort; nowhere does
Dumbledore do a big speach about living together and
building bridges among the houses (schools, yes!
houses - never a word!) and becoming understanding of
other witches & wizards regardless of background. He
never does it. Are his housemates? And if they did,
would he listen to them over Lucius? Has Snape?
Doubtful he's done more than an official paen of some
sort - it would be too risky. 

WHich leads to...

> But if
> Cedric Diggory's death hasn't made him start
> questioning if Voldemort
> is really good, then what the heck will it take? 
> Cedric was not a
> Mudblood, and while he may have been a Muggle-lover,
> we don't see him
> conspicuously hanging around with any Muggle-borns
> the way Ron and
> Harry do.  He's a nice, pureblood wizard from an
> inoffensive house. 
> There's no indication that he ever had any problems
> with Draco.  Now
> he's dead just 'cause he happened to be standing
> next to Harry at the
> wrong time -- and Draco doesn't seem to see anything
> wrong with that. 
> Would it have been different if he actually saw
> Cedric's dead body, or
> heard Voldemort coldly saying "Kill the spare?"  I
> don't know.
We don't even know if Draco knows that Cedric was
killed simply because he was standing next to Harry.
They were told that Cediric was a good, kind boy who
was killed because he crossed the path of Voldemort -
what does that mean? The only people who saw Cedric
killed were Harry and Wormtail - I'm not sure what
Voldemort was "seeing" but he certainly ordered it.
And Lucius saw Cedric's body, saw Harry flee with it -
but he would know only what Voldemort told his
followers after Harry escaped. 

He probably didn't tell them the truth.

There's a hint at the end of GoF that there are rumors
flying that Harry was somehow involved in Cedric's
death in a way other than the horrible "accident" of
having him grab the Cup at the same time as he did.
It's entirely possible that Draco and other students
think that Harry was to blame. And on the train, he's
repearing a *fact* about Cedric - he was the first to
be killed now that the Dark Lord's returned. It's
true. He was. And everything else Draco says there is
also true. Muggle-borns and those who support Muggles
and Muggle-born witches and wizards *are* the most in
danger now that Voldemort has returned. And Harry
would probably have less threats to his life if he'd
accepted Draco's hand in friendship. The style is
sneering and nasty. The sentences are all completely
true. And if there are rumors flying about Cedric's
death, if people are saying things - and if Draco is
believing things - that aren't the truth, he might
feel justified in his words. 

It's not an uncommon thing - I've seen it happen just
this winter. If a friend of yours tells you a lie, and
you don't have any information to the contraty, will
you believe it? Or, as it's your friend, will you take
it as truth without questioning it? Or would you even
question it and your friend has an explanation, would
you believe it then?

Most likely. That's the nature of gossip, of rumor, of
those chain letters on the internet that tell you that
Bill Gates is going to send you to Disneyworld for
forwarding an email to 10 people. Why should Draco
have a different way of believing information than
anyone else?

(reminder, before someone asks: Draco did stand for
Cedric at the leaving feast; he just didn't stand for
Harry - which is consistant with the rumor thing)


Arclevel also wrote:
> The first thing to remember about Draco is that we
see him entirely 
> through Harry's limited POV, perhaps more so than
most of the
> other characters... Since JKR apparently has
constructed
> backstories and personalities for even her minor
characters, I 
> think there has to be more to Draco than the little
bit that he 
> shows Harry, and that we thus see.

True - for many other characters who we *know* have
shades of black and white (the real Moody, Snape,
Sirius, Lupin, even Wormtail) - we hear stories about
them from other characters. Sirius speaks of Moody
with regard to the Unforgivable Curses, and about
Snape's childhood. Lupin tells about his childhood and
his Hogwarts friends. We learn about Snape in the
Pensieve, and about Sirius from Fudge and McGonnagal
when they speak with Madam Rosemerta. We've never
heard a story about Draco from anyone - we only know
the interactions we've seen. And in all but 3 of them,
he knows Harry is there. ANd in one of them - at the
World Cup, he warns the boys to get Hermione out of
there - he is mean to Ron and criticises Hermione when
he does it, but he could've summoned the Death Eaters
instead, even surreptitiously. He didn't. 

And look at the way Snape describes Sirius - or the
way Sirius describes Snape. If all  you knew of Sirius
was what Snape said about him, would you think he was
a good guy, kind to his grandson, willing to eat rats
to keep an eye on him? 

> I'd like to
> see more depth to Draco's character, but I'm not
real sure how
> we'll see it, given the perspective.    

I'll lay my bets with the Goblins that we'll learn of
it the same way we've learned Snape's backstory, or
Sirius's, or even Moody's. Mostly things said by other
characters, perhaps a trip into a Pensieve or
something similar. We should get more depth, either as
an illustration of how someone is raised into evil, or
how someone chooses to turn away from it.

heidi
Follow me to FictionAlley.org - HP fanfic of all
shapes, sizes & SHIPs
http://www.fictionalley.org

=====
heidi tandy

They say its a sign of mental health to hold apparently contradictory ideas in your mind. The world of late has been a particularly exotic stew of horror and beauty. There are killers, there are saints. The trick is to find the right spot on the spectrum between abject despair and total obliviousness. And then carry on...
Joel Achenbach

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 22:19:58 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:19:58 -0000
Subject: Could Snape have (or has had) a mental/personalitiy disorder?
In-Reply-To: <a9kjri+m28l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9ksee+ik2q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37911

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sherlock_2040" <merlyn_dawson at h...> wrote:

> Personally, I believe Snape might be a bit paranoid but there could 
> perhaps be more to his nature than just he is bitter, confused and 
> won't allow himself to be happy.
> 
> Having a quick search on www.mentalhealth.com was a gem in 
> information, which I present here:
> 
> PERSONALITY DISODER:
> A personality disorder is a severe disturbance in the 
> characterological constitution and behavioural tendencies of the 
> individual, usually involving several areas of the personality, and 
> nearly always associated with considerable personal and social 
> disruption. Personality disorder tends to appear in late childhood 
or 
> adolescence and continues to be manifest into adulthood. It is 
> therefore unlikely that the diagnosis of personality disorder will 
be 
> appropriate before the age of 16 or 17 years.
> 
> SCHIZOID PERSONALITY DISORDER
> Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following: 
> 
> (a) few, if any, activities, provide pleasure;

Snape: Only brewing potions so far as we know.

> (b) emotional coldness, detachment or flattened affectivity; 

He certainly acts that way...

> (c) limited capacity to express either warm, tender feelings or 
anger 
> towards others;

Haven't seen one place where he does.

> (d) apparent indifference to either praise or criticism; 

He does. He makes a *big* point of his indifference to the praise of 
others on Harry - and other's criticism on potions...

> (e) little interest in having sexual experiences with another 
person 
> (taking into account age);

Well... how are we supposed to know?

> (f) almost invariable preference for solitary activities;

Aside from his work... Yes, Snape obviously prefers solitary.

> (g) excessive preoccupation with fantasy and introspection;
MM... Don't know about this.
 
> (h) lack of close friends or confiding relationships (or having 
only 
> one) and of desire for such relationships;

Only Dumbledore (unless there's something about Filch)

> (i) marked insensitivity to prevailing social norms and 
conventions. 

Well - Not speaking bad of dead/not speaking bad of a child's 
parents/not insulting frightened or harmed children are social norms 
Snape keeps breaking all the time.

4 yes, and a few 'may-be's.
 
> PARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDER:
> Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following: 
> 
> (a) excessive sensitiveness to setbacks and rebuffs; 

Mm.. Don't know what setback or rebuff mean...

> (b) tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive 
> insults and injuries or slights;

Definate yes! Holding a grudge against a *dead* man over 10 years? 
Another, for *more* time?
 
> (c) suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience 
by 
> misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile 
or 
> contemptuous; 

He does this to Gryffindor students all the time, doesn't he?

> (d) a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of 
keeping 
> with the actual situation;

Hmm... The matter with Neville's boggart?
 
> (e) recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual 
> fidelity of spouse or sexual partner; 

Can't say - he doesn't *have* a spouse.

> (f) tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a 
> persistent self-referential attitude;

That's more Lockhart than Snape.
 
> (g) preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" 
explanations 
> of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large. 

Don't know what he thinks... but he obviously has obsession about 
Harry Potter being the cause of all trouble.

2 definate 'yes' - and others 'don't know'..
 
> DISSOCIAL (Antisocial) PERSONALITY DISORDER
> Personality disorder, usually coming to attention because of a 
gross 
> disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and 
> characterized by at least 3 of the following: 
> 
> (a) callous unconcern for the feelings of others; 

Definate Yes - obvious;

> (b) gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard 
> for social norms, rules and obligations;

Disregard for social norms - but not any of others
 
> (c) incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no 
> difficulty in establishing them;

No. Just the opposite.

> (d) very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for 
> discharge of aggression, including violence;

Not violent, is he?
 
> (e) incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, 
> particularly punishment;

Hmm-- Hard to say.. guess not.

> (f) marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible 
> rationalizations, for the behaviour that has brought the patient 
into 
> conflict with society. 

Well, he certainly blames others! Mostly Harry so far as we know.

This gets one definate yes - and quite a few no's...

Schizoid Disorder... well, I got the required 3 - and it is fun to 
anylise if a character has some mental problem.

-- Finwitch





From dicentra at xmission.com  Wed Apr 17 23:26:21 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:26:21 -0000
Subject: Ship FAQs ???
In-Reply-To: <a9jagb+87c7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9l0at+86tu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37912

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "anglinsbees" <anglinsbees at y...> wrote:
> 
> Could someone please post a FAQ-type summary of the various current 
> ships/ theories/ acronyms floating about.  I think I have Lolipops 
> and toadkeeper figured out, but I'd like a handy-dandy reference to 
> the other, smaller ships in the water.
> 
A seer!  A seer!  You read our minds!

As it turns out, such a document is currently in the works, and we
hope to have it available well before Book 5 is released. (This gives
us LOTS of time, unfortunately.) :)

In the meantime, you can find all the acronyms in our Inish Alley
database:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=13

Some of the acronyms are self-explanatory, others not.  If you just
can't wait, though, contact the Elves at this address

HPFGU-Mod at yahoogroups.com

and we'll see what we can whip up for you.

--Dicey the Acronym Elf




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Apr 17 18:21:19 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:21:19 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: PlayStation? (Was: Sirius Black's math mistake?)
In-Reply-To: 397
Message-ID: <16600080.1236379415@imcingular.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37913

Good catch! It bugged me too, so I looked up the month it was introduced in japan. Summer, 1994 - although it was August. You could get one for an insane price in the uk that fall, so clinically, jkr was literally off by 3 months or so.

Heidi Tandy
Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce
http://www.FictionAlley.org

----Original Message----

From: "draco382" <draco382 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: PlayStation? (Was: Sirius Black's math mistake?)
Real-To:  "draco382" <draco382 at yahoo.com>

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" <jferer at y...> wrote:
> Jamie:"When Sirius speaks to Peter (p. 370) he says,
> "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years, they say he's half
> dead."  As far as I can tell, Voldemort can only have been in
hiding
> for twelve to thirteen years, if the infant Harry defeated him on
> Halloween, 1981.  It may be just a rough estimation on Sirius's
part,
> but why would he be so unspecific when he  clearly knows exactly
how
> many years he spent in prison?"
>
> It doesn't seem likely, but it may be that Sirius is counting some
> time before Voldemort was defeated as being "in hiding." The
obvious
> objection to that is that Voldemort was at his most powerful before
he
> came calling at Godric's Hollow.  Otherwise, I don't see an
> explanation.


Hi, I have been "lurking" for quite a long time now, but since the
topic of time discrepancy came up, I thought I would throw my two
cents in.  There is a scene in GoF where Harry writes a letter to
Sirius saying:
"...They told him they'd have to cut his pocket money if he keeps
doing it, so he got really angry and chucked his PlayStation out of
the window" --Goblet of Fire, pg 27)
Believe it or not, that actually stood out to me for some reason.  I
looked this up and apparently, Sony released PlayStation in the U.S
and UK only in 1995, and I'm guessing that this scene (which happens
during the summer right after their third year) is in 1994?  oh
well...I guess this goes to prove that...I have entirely too much
time on my hands.  :-)

~P



________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





From elfundeb at aol.com  Thu Apr 18 01:55:46 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:55:46 EDT
Subject: Snape, Logic, and the PS/SS bottle puzzle
Message-ID: <7c.268178c5.29ef81a2@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37914

In a message dated 4/17/2002 7:27:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (edis) writes:

> According to Hermione most wizards don't have an ounce of logic
> in  them and so would be baffled by the challenge. Clearly Snape is 
> fingered as unusual, being credited with having more than an ounce of 
> a somewhat non-Wizarding skill.. 
> 
> > Maybe this will be important at some stage?
> 
To which Marina responded:

> It certainly seems to fit in with his general ability to "put two and
> two together as only Snape can."  I'm not sure how important it will
> be to the overall plot -- I think the puzzle scene in PS/SS was
> intended to highlight Hermione's logical ability rather than Snape's
> -- but it is suggestive.
> 
> It's ironic, though: Snape seems to be one of the few wizards capable
> of logical thinking, but he's also more likely than most wizards to
> let his emotions get in the way of his intellect.  It's yet another
> stereotype that he breaks: fiction tends to present logical characters
> as unemotional, and vice versa, but Snape is both logical and
> violently passionate.
> 
It's very interesting, too, how this scene links Hermione and Snape, two 
characters who on the surface could not be more different.  But I think what 
you said of Snape is equally true of Hermione:  her solution illustrates that 
she is capable of logical thinking (and she doesn't succeed merely by 
memorizing), but Hermione can also be very passionate; for example, with 
regard to the House-Elves, she allows her emotions to rule over logical 
thinking.  And in "Padfoot's Return" in GoF she relies on her compassion in 
her assessment of Crouch Sr.  I've noticed other similarities between them, 
too, but can't remember them right now.

Edis also asked:

> By the way was there ever a proof that the puzzle as presented in 
> PS/SS can actually be solved logically? Can't see anything in 
> surviving archives or in the FAQs on this.  As far as I can see yes 
> it can be solved logically, giving certain limiting assumptions and 
> the additional information available to Hermione who can see the 
> actual arrangement of bottles, But `no' if the information in
> the clue poem is all we have to go on.
> 
I think the puzzle presented in PS/SS can be solved by logic, quite easily 
IMO, if the smallest bottle is #3 or #4 (starting with #1 on the left to #7 
on the right) and the tallest is either #2 or #6, using only the clues in the 
poem.  Here's my solution:

Bottles 2 and 6 must be the wine because they are the same (Clue 4) and 
neither is poison if one of those bottles is the tallest (Clue 2).

The bottles to the left of the wine are poison (Clue 1) so bottles 1 and 5 
are poison.

Bottle 7 must be Hermione's bottle.  It can't be the same as Bottle 1 so it 
can't be poison (Clue 2), it can't be wine because there are only two wine 
bottles and they are ## 2 and 6, and it can't be Harry's bottle because it 
doesn't go forward (Clue 2).

This leaves slots 3 and 4, one of which is poison and the other of which is 
Harry's bottle.  Because Hermione can see which is the smallest bottle, she 
knows which one to give Harry (Clue 3).

It is also possible to reach the same answer from the reader's perspective:

Hermione tells us her bottle is # 7.

Bottle # 1 must be poison.  It can't be Harry's because it's on the end (Clue 
1).  It can't be wine because there is no room for a poison bottle to its 
left (Clue 1).

Bottles 2 and 6 must be wine because there must always be a poison to the 
left of each wine (Clue 1).  Bottle #6 would be to the left of Hermione's and 
bottle #1 would be to the left of another poison, so this doesn't work.

Bottle #5 must be poison because it's to the left of the wine (Clue 1).

This leaves bottles 3 and 4, one of which is poison and the other of which is 
Harry's.  Harry takes the smallest bottle, which cannot be poison (Clue 3).

Debbie, who loves logic puzzles


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Ahketsi at aol.com  Thu Apr 18 01:04:35 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:04:35 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
Message-ID: <13e.ceda0c1.29ef75a3@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37915

"To be able to accio an object, you must be able to see it 
or be VERY familiar with it."   -Grey Wolf

I have one problem with that. What about when Mrs. Weasly accio'ed the 
toffees from Fred and George's persons? She probably wasn't familiar with 
them and definitely couldn't see see. Perhaps that was different because she 
was so close. 

you'll notice that when Harry summons his firebolt to him he says "accio 
firebolt" but when Mrs. weasly used the charm she just said "accio." Also, 
when Harry was practicing the charm earlier, I *think* he was only saying 
"accio." Perhaps when a person is far away from the object they need to say 
it's name, or maybe Harry just felt like adding the word "firebolt" after 
"accio" because he felt like it, with no real significance. Possibly saying 
the name out loud helps a person get a better mental image of it.

-Jacey




From dorbandb at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 19:05:34 2002
From: dorbandb at yahoo.com (dorbandb)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:05:34 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, Flamel, and Fawkes
In-Reply-To: <a9iij8+usun@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9kh1u+3iov@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37916

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "maidne" <maidne at y...> wrote:
> I know there've been tons of discussions about Dumbledore and 
Flamel, 
> and Dumbledore and Fawkes, but I was just musing about Flamel this 
> morning, his age, and whether he has actually died yet or not. 
<snip>

Hi Maidne,
Count me as one who thinks that Flamel *is* still alive as there is no 
canon evidence to *prove* he is dead now - only that he *will* die 
[in the future].  There has also been minor speculation that Flamel 
may not even be a wizard!  Again, canon offers no *proof* that he's a 
wizard, and in fact, gives us a number of hints that he is not ( I 
don't have time right now to compose a persuasive post on this - maybe 
later :)


 <snip>
> I just suddenly wondered if there could be any connection between 
> Flamel and Fawkes (flame/phoenix?)  I've been all through the FAQ's 
> and the lexicon and didn't find any discussion on it there.  Any 
> ideas, or is it just that there's no discussion on it because it's 
> too farfetched or stupid to talk about?  :)

Not too farfetched at all, and certainly not stupid.  We know ( OK, we 
highly suspect) that Fawkes will be center-stage in the next book - 
Order of the Phoenix - so hopefully we will get some more insight into 
the relationship between Dumbledore, Fawkes - and maybe even Flamel.

Brian






From silvercat at qnet.com  Thu Apr 18 00:55:01 2002
From: silvercat at qnet.com (Silvercat)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:55:01 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weatherby
References: <a9f4uo+7eoj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CBE1965.489D3833@qnet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37917

YES! Someone who agrees with me! Thank you!

gwendolyngrace wrote:
> It's in Chapter 28, "The Madness of Mr Crouch." Crouch is behaving
> very peculiarly, talking to trees and such, and he mentions Weatherby
> three times. The first two are probably in reference to Percy, because
> they also relate to the Triwizard Tournament:

Buuut... they could refer to previous Triwizard Tournaments (I really
wish I could look this up, but I don't have the book...)

gwendolyngrace wrote:
> However, the next time Crouch mentions the name Weatherby, it's in
> conjunction with a much older memory:
> 
<snip quote>
> 
> Crouch's next statement is to brag about Jr.'s 12 O.W.L.'s, and though
> it's not clearly indicated, I believe it to be a continuation of the
> remembered conversation, much as his second statement is a
> continuation of the list of instructions he gave Percy. So these
> clearly refer to a time before Crouch Jr.'s imprisonment.

Right.  But, just to play devil's advocate, he could be addressing Percy
and remembering the past.  You know, thinking something that already
happened is going to happen.... if that makes any sense.

gwendolyngrace continued:
> We learn later that Crouch has been fighting the Imperius Curse at
> least since the beginning of the year, and that his confusion was
> almost certainly a side effect of the mental energy of breaking the
> curse--the effort drives him mad.

Ummm, which Crouch? I assume you mean Sr. but if Jr. was fighting it...
What holds up the Imperius? 
The energy of the curser?  Trying to keep his son under control could
start to mix Sr. up.

Melody wrote:
> Barty also says in chapter 35 that he had been fighting the Imperius Curse 
> for some time, and was able to hold it off. Might this cause further strain 
> on Crouch Sr.?

After all, the magic and will of the Curse has to come from somewhere. 
One problem: they seem to imply that an Imperius from anyone will be
very strong and it's only the will of the cursee that affects it.  But
presumbably only strongwilled people would try it anyway.

gwendolyngrace continued:
> This is the same struggle going on in Crouch in chapter 17, when he
> refuses Dumbledore's offers to stay the night, and calls Percy
> "Weatherby" again.
> 
> I believe that "Weatherby" is actually the name of a *former*
> assistant of Crouch's, perhaps one who was a lot like Percy. I think
> it's this similarity that reminds Crouch of Weatherby when he thinks
> of Percy--and that lends to his confusion after the Curse is placed on
> him.

Thank you! Do we have enough people for an acronym yet? Ummm, anyway. 
The names are slightly similar to begin with, and if Crouch is confused,
either from being under the Curse *or* trying to hold it up on Jr. (or
both in sequence), that and a similarity to a former helper (either in
just being young, male, and his assistant, or similar characteristics)
could be enough to mix up the names.

gwendolyngrace wrote:
> At first, I thought Crouch may have already had Imperius cast before
> the Quidditch World Cup. The timeline is ambiguous, although it
> strongly suggests that Voldemort did not make contact until after the
> event. However, it may be possible that he *did* arrange to Imperius
> Barty Sr. before the cup, or else decided he needed to enlist Barty
> Jr. prior to the cup, and perhaps at that time, Crouch is suffering
> from the combinative effects of Imperius and a memory charm.

Yeah, adding a memory change wouldn't help, but I doubt that part...
Since we have Jr.'s statement, not Sr.'s.

Ana wrote:
> This sounds interesting... But if Crouch calling Percy "Weatherby" 
> during the cup indeed was an honest mistake, caused by magically 
> induced blurring of past and present, shouldn't somebody of his old 
> colleagues, say, Arthur Weasley, have noticed that Crouch was behaving 
> out of character?  Surely some remark like "That's not like old Barty, 
> confusing his current and former assistants" was in order.

Yeah I thought of that sort of thing.  If he was mixing up assistants
why didn't Mr. Weasley mention that he had a former Weatherby.  It could
be that Mr. Weasly doesn't know Crouch Sr. too terribly well (and never
met Weatherby).

Okay, basic summing up of the theory/timeline so far:

Barty Crouch Jr, who has been under the Imperius Curse for quite some
time (a few years), goes to the Quidditch World Championship under the
watch of his father and Winky.  He watches the match, manages to fight
off the curse (due to long experience with it, and weakening of his
father's will - also, how far away was Sr.? That might make a
difference) and sets off the Dark Mark.  Sr. calls Percy 'Weatherby'
from confusion and distraction - watching/worrying about Jr, keeping
control of the curse, tiredness, etc.

LV and Wormtail get in contact with him.  LV gives him his assignment -
replace Moody and infiltrate Hogwarts.  Sr. is Imperioed to keep from
warning anyone.

Moody is replaced.

Over the year the curse on Sr. is weakened (either from Jr's distance or
weakened will from being under Imperius so long).  Long exposure/age
makes him confused about time.

He escapes and tries to warn Dumbledore.  And is killed by his son.


So Sr.'s miscalling of Percy could originally have been confusion, but
at the end was the effect of the curses!
-- 
Silvercat / Phoenix - 

I seriously question the sanity of somebody who uses multiple
exclamation marks. 
_________________________
http://blackflame.topcities.com - Silvercat's Menagerie, a vast array of
mostly disconnected stuff





From melodylemming at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 17 15:28:29 2002
From: melodylemming at hotmail.com (Melody B.)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:28:29 -0400
Subject: Weatherby
Message-ID: <F23baENFGcMd5NfOIfC00000bdd@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37918

Ana wrote:
>This sounds interesting... But if Crouch calling Percy "Weatherby"
>during the cup indeed was an honest mistake, caused by magically
>induced blurring of past and present, shouldn't somebody of his old
>colleagues, say, Arthur Weasley, have noticed that Crouch was behaving
>out of character?  Surely some remark like "That's not like old Barty,
>confusing his current and former assistants" was in order.

In Sirius's description of Crouch and in Dumbledore's memories in the 
Pensieve, we find out that Crouch is a fanatic. Well intentioned (probably), 
but not completely sane when dealing with Death Eaters.

>From there, if his colleagues know him as an eccentric, they aren't going to 
be surprised if it branches over into other things as well.

Also, Crouch is stressed from preparing for the Quidditch Cup and the 
Triwizard Tournament, so no one will be surprised if he seems tired -- 
they'll think it's a one time thing. Remember, most of the time Percy and 
Crouch are together is at work, so nobody except Percy is going to know 
that/if Crouch calls him by the wrong name on a regular basis.

Melody

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 18:51:26 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:51:26 -0000
Subject: Accio Use  (Was Re: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!)
In-Reply-To: <a9jljc+ss1t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9kg7e+lfiv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37919

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., > 
> Ellen A.K.A. Moriel Malkin delurked to suggest:
> > Why didn't Harry just use the summoning charm he had ready to 
> > summon  the golden egg to himself?  
 
> Amy Z, "lupinesque" wrote:
> > This is a really good question, answerable only, I think, by  
> > "because dragon eggs are protected by very strong magic and one 
> > can't just Summon one out of the nest, even if it's just a golden 
> > fake."  

 "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:

> the last time we talked about it in the list we reached certain 
> conclussions that can be used here. To be able to accio an object, 
> you must be able to see it or be VERY familiar with it. Most of the 
> time, you also need to  say it's name, 

> Then again, maybe the dragon was sitting on them, which would make 
> it much more difficult to aim with the spell through the powerful 
> magical defenses of the dragon 

> A final reason: the dragon is not stupid. If one of his 
> eggs starts to fly away, he would just grab it and put it back in 
> its place.

My belief is that there must be anti-summoming spells in place over 
the egg and this was probably explained offpage as Harry, Moody, and 
not even Hermione considered it. I can easily pictuer Hermione 
objecting, "You to learn a summoning charm? But the prize surely has 
a counter charm for that!"

I'm guessing anti-accio charms are well accepted at Hogwart's. 
Otherwise it would be much easier to get the Polyjuice Potion 
ingredients in book 2 (Yes I know they haven't learned it yet) but 
Moody would have used accio to summon the same ingredients in Book 4. 
Instead, he had to physically enter Snape's Office (Possibly wearing 
his own invisibility cloak.)

Could you omagine the mischief, Fred & George could get into if there 
weren't anti-accio charms? Why go to the kitchens if you could just 
summon sweets? A dishonest student could summon the contents of 
Honeyduke's or Zonko's from Hogsmeade without paying... Or steal 
teacher's tests or forbidden books, etc.

WORSE Draco knew about Harry's invisibility cloak. Could you imagine 
Draco stealing Harry's cloak? or by using the opposite banishment 
could he plant contraband in Harry's room and accuse him of some 
crime? If this was possible, Draco might try this as early as book 
two by paying an older Slytherin to plant incriminating evidence. 
Remember Harry and Ron were on a sort of probation after the Anglia 
Incident.

Uncmark




From joy_fleisig at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 18 01:15:50 2002
From: joy_fleisig at yahoo.com (joy_fleisig)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 01:15:50 -0000
Subject: Naming Schemes
In-Reply-To: <F293Lw2UggLHWbw1q8a00010930@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9l6o6+son6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37920

Ginny could also be a diminutive of Guinevere, if we want to continue 
with Arthurian mythology. Guinevere is referred to as Jenny in TH 
White's "The Once and Future King."

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Liz Sager" <ChaserChick at h...> wrote:
> Finwitch wrote:
> >Ginny... Was someone playing gin?
> 
> I think its a fandom assumption (by some, anyway) that Ginny is 
short for 
> Virginia.
> 
> Liz
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.





From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 18 06:50:14 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 06:50:14 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, Flamel, and Fawkes
In-Reply-To: <a9kh1u+3iov@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9lqb6+685f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37921

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dorbandb" <dorbandb at y...> wrote:
> Count me as one who thinks that Flamel *is* still alive as there is 
no 
> canon evidence to *prove* he is dead now - only that he *will* die 
> [in the future].  There has also been minor speculation that Flamel 
> may not even be a wizard!  Again, canon offers no *proof* that he's 
a 
> wizard, and in fact, gives us a number of hints that he is not ( I 
> don't have time right now to compose a persuasive post on this - 
maybe 
> later :)

I thought it was pretty clear Nicholas Flamel was not a wizard. He's 
an alchemist. 

Zoe Hooch




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Thu Apr 18 10:04:56 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:04:56 -0000
Subject: Draco at the World Cup, Dumbledore's methods (was Wherefore Art Thou Draco)
In-Reply-To: <20020417195626.23848.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a9m5o8+9p4d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37922

I agree with the general thesis of Heidi and a number of other 
posters that there is more to Draco than meets the eye (and 
his 'redemption' is possible, even hinted at), but I want to take 
issue on a couple of points of detail.

Heidi:

>  at the
> World Cup, he warns the boys to get Hermione out of
> there - he is mean to Ron and criticises Hermione when
> he does it, but he could've summoned the Death Eaters
> instead, even surreptitiously. He didn't. 
> 
I agree that Draco's comments at the World Cup are not those of a 
person who is calculating what will give most benefit to the cause of 
Death Eaterism.  He is potentially putting his father in danger of an 
investigation, should R, H & H report and be believed.  He is helping 
his parents' opponents to understand the situation that is developing.

However, I do not believe he is covertly trying to help Hermione 
evade anti-Muggle-born persecution either.  At least that is not the 
natural interpretation of the text in the wider context of Draco's 
actions generally.  (We do need a discussion some time about the 
status of speculation that is consistent with canon but not the most 
probable interpretation, and how that is to be related to JKR's 
propensity to mislead - but it would take us too far afield here.)

My understanding of Draco's behaviour is that he wants to be seen as 
top dog by his own group (to my amazement, he seems to succeed in 
this - as a second or third year he gets an appreciative audience of 
much older Slytherins when he taunts Harry), and to express his 
superiority in wit and sport over others.  His main motive seems to 
me to be to put down Ron in particular, and to a lesser extent Harry 
and Hermione.  For example, his anti-mudblood remarks in COS do not 
necessarily express a deap-seated ideological conviction - he is just 
using whatever weapon comes to hand in the contest he wants to fight.

I think the World Cup case fits in with this.  He wants to make H, H 
& R uncomfortable; he wants to signal that though he is in (as he 
sees it) a put-upon minority at Hogwarts, his sub-culture commands 
support from significant numbers of people.  He just wants to hit out 
at Harry's insufferable way of winning favour no matter what he does, 
show Ron that the Weasley world view has not prevailed, and crack 
Hermione's irritatingly impervious ignoring of him.

That brings me to my second point.  Heidi again:

> People have argued that at Hogwarts, where he's
> exposed to kids from Muggle backgrounds who are
> smarter than him (like Hermione) and where he is
> exposed to Dumbledore's "Muggle-loving", he should see
> that the world is not what Lucius described. BUt when
> is he to see this? Only at the end of Book 4 does
> Dumbledore ever talk about Voldemort; nowhere does
> Dumbledore do a big speach about living together and
> building bridges among the houses (schools, yes!
> houses - never a word!) and becoming understanding of
> other witches & wizards regardless of background. He
> never does it. Are his housemates? And if they did,
> would he listen to them over Lucius? Has Snape?
> Doubtful he's done more than an official paen of some
> sort - it would be too risky. 
> 

I believe that from Draco's POV, it is very obvious what 
the 'Hogwarts Doctrine' on Muggles, people of partial wizarding 
blood, and magically disabled people, is.

I see it as a tribute to Dumbledore's teaching methods, not a 
criticism, that he does not resort to preaching at the students to 
get his point across.  Draco knows that this is a man who lets Muggle-
borns into Hogwarts, employs a Squib, and allows ghosts, werewolves 
and half-giants (and of the alleged servant class) to be on the  
teaching staff.  He knows that Dumbledore did all that was legally in 
his power to get Buckbeak off.  (BTW, I think that those who see 
Draco as 'only' engaging in mild bullying and verbal abuse without 
any real determination to make his malice stick have a case to answer 
in Buckbeak: even if Lucius took over the running of the case, it 
seems clear that Draco was out from the start to inflict real damage 
on Hagrid, both emotionally and on his career.)  Dumbledore's values 
are in the air Draco breathes - people sing the school song at their 
own pace, teachers are given free rein to teach in their own way, 
good acts are publicly commended, the point of feasts is enjoyment, 
and earnestness takes second place to 'nitwit, blubber, oddment, 
tweak'.

I'd say it is clear that Draco knows that while he is at Hogwarts he 
represents a beleaguered minority view, and whenever he tries to 
assert *his* cultural values he suffers a reverse.  Powerless (in the 
main) to effect real change, he contents himself with throwing stones 
at what he imagines to be soft targets from the sidelines.

So, in summary, I don't see any hidden pro-Hermione (or Dumbledore) 
agenda in his 'warnings' at the World Cup,  nor do I feel he lacks 
opportunity to understand what Dumbledore is about.

David




From rthomp681 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 16 13:57:12 2002
From: rthomp681 at yahoo.com (thomp_27)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:57:12 -0000
Subject: Karkaroff/Krum/Hermione
Message-ID: <a9hajo+pm9h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37923

This goes back a couple of days, but.... I was thinking about Eloise's 
question (hope I have the attribution right) as I was listening to GoF 
on tape last evening during a walk.  On the train to Hogwarts, 
Hermione and the guys heard Malfoy say something that might also be 
relevant to Karkaroff's dislike of Hermione that I haven't seen anyone 
else mention (although I may have missed it of course): 
        
Chapter 11  "Father actually considered sending me to Durmstrang 
rather than Hogwarts, you know.  He knows the Headmaster, you see.  
Well, you know his opinion of Dumbledore -- the man is such a        
Mudblood lover -- and Durmstrang doesn't admit that kind of 
riff-raff." 
                
Aside from all the other reasons folks have mentioned, he might not 
have liked his star fraternizing with "riff-raff." 

Ruth 
              
Eloise wrote: But how else do you explain that the way Karkaroff looks 
at Victor when he enters the Yule Ball with Hermione is equated with 
the way Ron looks at Hermione?





From grega126 at aol.com  Wed Apr 17 19:37:57 2002
From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:37:57 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew and the Sorting Hat
In-Reply-To: <000b01c1e604$c70fbe80$0200a8c0@shasta>
Message-ID: <a9kiul+a7j1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37924

I always love reading these discussions about what house Peter was 
in.  Because he certainly doesn't seem brave enough for Gryffindor 
nor does it seem likely that James, Sirius and Remus (almost 
undoubtedly Gryffindors) would be friends with him if he was in 
Slytherin.  

I think the common assumption among people is that the Sorting Hat 
takes what it sees and makes a decision based on that.  Is it not at 
all possible that the Sorting Hat's job for people like Peter is to 
force them to grow as people.  Perhaps the Sorting Hat hoped that by 
placing Peter in Gryffindor, "Home of the Brave", some of their 
bravery would rub off on him.  As incompetent as he is often 
portrayed, he did manage the Animagus transformation, not to mention 
come up with a plan that sent Sirius to prison while he was made a 
hero.  If his friends' bravery had rubbed off a little better, he 
probably would've made an extremely useful wizard for Light Magic.

Greg

(First post, please be nice.)





From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Thu Apr 18 11:05:19 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:05:19 -0000
Subject: Harry's new pet?
In-Reply-To: <a9knhf+e2nv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9m99f+hucu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37925

Caroline (welcome to HPFGU, Caroline!) wrote:

> A three headed snake!  That's interesting... I bet that will show 
up, 
> even if Harry doesn't get one as a pet.  
> 
...which raises yet another topic for endless speculation: which of 
the beasts in FB is there just for a joke (it was Comic Relief, after 
all), which will appear in a walk-on role (like Lockhart's pixies or 
the gnomes), and which will really be important?

Apart from the now well-known Kneazle, my vote in the last category 
is for the Lethifold and, of course, the dragons.  But the Runespoor 
sounds plausible too, despite the spoof on Freudian psychology.

David, who thinks it unlikely that we will meet the Hairy McBoons




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Apr 18 11:18:29 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:18:29 -0000
Subject: Wherefore Art Thou Draco
In-Reply-To: <20020417195626.23848.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a9ma25+kjl3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37926

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidi tandy <heidit at n...> wrote:
> I think that there would be no argument here with the
> following sentence: Draco has emulated or mimicked
> Lucius behaviour or thinking on various issues.

Definitely not argument there.  When we meet Lucius in CoS, his 
insults to Arthur are remarkably similar to Draco's insults to Ron.  
And nobody is born being a racist snob, so it's pretty clear Draco 
is following in Daddy's footsteps.

> think that Harry was to blame. And on the train, he's
> repearing a *fact* about Cedric - he was the first to
> be killed now that the Dark Lord's returned. It's
> true. He was. And everything else Draco says there is
> also true. Muggle-borns and those who support Muggles
> and Muggle-born witches and wizards *are* the most in
> danger now that Voldemort has returned. And Harry
> would probably have less threats to his life if he'd
> accepted Draco's hand in friendship. The style is
> sneering and nasty. The sentences are all completely
> true.

I know they're true.  That, IMO, is precisely what makes Draco's 
behavior in that scene so atrocious.  If he was simply engaging in 
empty posturing, I'd be more willing to dismiss it.  But Cedric 
really is dead; Ron and Hermione really are targets for future 
killings.  And Draco *gloats* about it.  I find it nauseating, and 
the truth of what he's saying is what makes it nauseating.


Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 17:56:30 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:56:30 -0000
Subject: Plot Holes/Portkeys/Sirius vs. Severus
Message-ID: <a9kd0e+38d4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37927

The Golden Egg-- Dragon Hide is immune to magic. A Dragon-Egg-shell 
would, I believe, be also immune to magic. The Golden Egg was located 
in the middle of Dragon Eggs, protected by them-- and possibly it was 
anti-magical, as well. Also, gold IS heavy, so Harry might not have 
been able to summon a heavy item, he may have not been able to do it, 
because the golden egg was behind a magic-proof shelter...

None of the OTHER magic users ever did a summoning charm on the egg 
either. In fact, the competitors were acting as if they were to have 
nothing *but* their wand and personal skill. The sort of self-
limiting instead of actual Rules. Harry summoned an additional item 
(which was within rules) but that thought never crossed the mind of 
any of the others.

Second Task: What happened to the knife Sirius sent Harry? It would 
have been *very* useful in freeing the "victims", also from getting 
free from the ropes before Pettigrew took Harry's blood...

Now, the Portkey-system... The boot had a delay - as they were 
counting seconds when holding it. The Cup had a delay, too - but 
obviously shorter, as there'd be no need for the winner to wait for 
others to touch it - nor did Crouch want *any* delay in transferring 
Harry to Voldemort.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if Sirius Black and Severus Snape will settle their 
differences- As Harry put it, Dumbledore was asking for a near 
miracle! Hmm... Arguement over how one should treat Harry? That would 
be some scene!

--Finwitch





From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Apr 18 12:42:30 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:42:30 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort and Pettigrew / Karkaroff/Krum/Hermione
Message-ID: <57.a1546e7.29f01936@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37928

Melody:

Tex wrote:
> >...Not to mention having to nursemaid baby Voldemort over all
> >that time, plus milk Nagini at regular intervals.  But it keeps
> >him alive, one day at a time.
> 
> Sudden thought: Does this mean that Voldemort is in debt to Pettigrew?
> 
> Pettigrew is the one who has been keeping Voldemort alive, with the help of 
> Nagini. Voldemort also would not have been able to create his new body 
> without P. -- Sure, he could have used someone else's hand, but then he'd 
> be 
> in debt to that other person.
> 
> Any ideas on this?
> 

I'm not sure that technically he's keeping him *alive*, is he, more just 
keeping him in some kind of corporeal form. Ditto the rebirthing. It's 
believed by Hagrid and Sirius that he cannot die, as he's not fully alive.
If it *does* constitute a life debt, then I should imagine that the usual 
rules (whatever they are) apply. Would this mean he was only in debt to the 
willing donor (Pettigrew) or to the unwilling one (Harry) too?  I suspect, 
however, that Voldemort would consider himself above the rules, whether 
natural or wizard-made.

Ruth:
> This goes back a couple of days, but.... I was thinking about Eloise's 
> question (hope I have the attribution right) as I was listening to GoF 
> on tape last evening during a walk.  On the train to Hogwarts, 
> Hermione and the guys heard Malfoy say something that might also be 
> relevant to Karkaroff's dislike of Hermione that I haven't seen anyone 
> else mention (although I may have missed it of course): 
>         
> Chapter 11  "Father actually considered sending me to Durmstrang 
> rather than Hogwarts, you know.  He knows the Headmaster, you see.  
> Well, you know his opinion of Dumbledore -- the man is such a        
> Mudblood lover -- and Durmstrang doesn't admit that kind of 
> riff-raff." 
>                 
> Aside from all the other reasons folks have mentioned, he might not 
> have liked his star fraternizing with "riff-raff." 

>Eloise wrote: But how else do you explain that the way Karkaroff looks at 
Victor >when he enters the Yule Ball with Hermione is equated with 
>the way Ron looks at Hermione?


Yes, it was I!
Thanks to you and all the others who have reassured me of the other possible 
interpretations of this passage. 

I'm not sure what to believe, actually. There's a part of me that thinks that 
implications of homosexual lust between teacher and student just aren't 
appropriate in what is ostensibly a children's book. Then I get worried about 
whether I'm being homophobic. Then I think, well the books are written on 
several levels and it's not the sort of thing a child would notice, so it 
could be. 

I don't know. All I can say is, that having been corrupted <g> by earlier 
discussions on this subject, the last time I heard that passage on tape, it 
simply leaped out at me.

I think it's a shame that we don't ever really get to see  any of the other 
Durmstrang and Beauxbatons students. We don't know who might have been deemed 
a suitable partner for Krum.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Apr 18 12:48:22 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:48:22 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Could Snape have (or has had) a mental/personalitiy disor...
Message-ID: <143.d1993a1.29f01a96@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37929

Steph wonders if Snape has an undiagnosed psychiatric problem:

> I came across a condition called 'Schizoid Personality Disorder' 
> (nothing to do with schizophrenia). Noting down a few of the key 
> symptoms my strange mind began thinking. Is it possible that Snape 
> may suffer or may have suffered from any sort of mental or 
> personality disorder? Could it be a condition that has never been 
> recognised and one that Snape fears being told he is suffering from? 
> 
> <snip>
> SCHIZOID PERSONALITY DISORDER
> Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following: 
> 
> 

Well, the man waxes lyrical over his potions. But the whole recreational side 
of life tends to be downplayed, doesn't it? Hagrid has his beasts and 
Dumbledore seems to derive pleasure from the simplest of things. But, for 
example, do we ever see McGonagall having fun?

> 

I think he (often) hides his emotions, but I think they're there. Look at the 
rages he gets into.

> (c) limited capacity to express either warm, tender feelings or anger 
> 

He can certainly express anger. We've never seen him in a position to express 
tenderness. It wouldn't do much for his image, would it?

> 

Some of us would say that much of his motivation has precisely to do with his 
desire for praise, or at least recognition. And he doesn't like it when Ron 
criticises his teaching methods, does he?

> (e) little interest in having sexual experiences with another person 
> 

Who knows (and wouldn't we like to? :-)  ) 

> 

Again, we don't see the teachers at play, as it were. But I'll agree that 
we've never seen him down the Three Broomsticks for a pint. 

> 

Who knows what goes on in that greasy head?  

> (h) lack of close friends or confiding relationships (or having only 
> 

Another one that's hard to judge. He seems to get on well with Filch (which 
may be no recommendation) and also have a fairly healthy relationship with 
McGonagall. I would think that he does have, to an extent at least, a 
confiding relationship with Dumbledore. But heck, how many men have many such 
relationships anyway? When he rounds on Lockhart, the impression is that he 
gets on pretty well with the rest of the staff. He was part of a gang at 
school. I think we've projected this loner image onto him.

> 

I don't see that.

> 
> PARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDER:
> Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following: 
> 
> 

I don't recall evidence of that. Dumbledore rebuffs him on occasion and it's 
always taken with good grace.

> (b) tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive 
> 

OK, you've got him there!

> (c) suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by 
> misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or 
> 

Definitely suspicious, but not of intentions towards himself.
I think this sounds a bit like Ron, on occasion, rather than Snape.

> (d) a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping 
> 

He misinterprets situations and this gets confused with personal motivation, 
as we have discussed at length over the Prank and the Shack. But I don't 
think that's the same thing.

> (e) recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual 
> 

who knows?

> (f) tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a 
> 

I don't think so. He  won't brook insubordination from *students*, but I see 
no evidence of this with his peers.

> (g) preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations 
> 

He usually has good reason to suspect conspiracy! (although again, he often 
gets it wrong)

> 
> DISSOCIAL (Antisocial) PERSONALITY DISORDER
> Personality disorder, usually coming to attention because of a gross 
> disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms,
> 
I don't see that for a start, not WW norms.

 and 
> characterized by at least 3 of the following: 
> 
> 

He seems to show this (unless you are one of those who take the view that 
it's all done with the best of intentions).

> (b) gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard 
> 

Quite the opposite


> (c) incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no 
> 

No evidence of this either way. His old (school) friends aren't exactly 
available, are they?

> (d) very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for 
> 

I don't think so. We've never seen him act violently. I think he has to cope 
with massive degrees of frustration.

> (e) incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, 
> 

Er.... well, he did turn from the Dark Side. Many of us think he's carrying a 
huge burden of guilt.

> (f) marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible 
> rationalizations, for the behaviour that has brought the patient into 
> 

But he's not in conflict with society since he left the Dark Side. I don't 
think he can have offered any lame excuses to Dumbledore about why he joined 
Voldemort, either, because they just wouldn't have washed.

> 
> There may also be persistent irritability as an associated feature. 
> Conduct disorder during childhood and adolescence, though not 
> 

Yes, he is irritable, but there are no indications of childhood conduct 
disorder. Others' conduct may have left a little to be desired, though.

So..... he's unkind and irritable and bears grudges. I don't personally think 
that adds up to a psychiatric problem.

Eloise, wondering if she ought to add some additional inscriptions to her 
Exploding SNAP (Snape's Not A Psychopath) badge.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Thu Apr 18 13:25:53 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:25:53 -0000
Subject: PlayStation? (Was: Sirius Black's math mistake?)
In-Reply-To: <a9g1cu+h9is@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9mhh1+bus9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37930

"draco382" wrote:
> Hi, I have been "lurking" for quite a long time now, but since the 
> topic of time discrepancy came up, I thought I would throw my two 
> cents in.  There is a scene in GoF where Harry writes a letter to 
> Sirius saying:
> "...They told him they'd have to cut his pocket money if he keeps 
> doing it, so he got really angry and chucked his PlayStation out of 
> the window" --Goblet of Fire, pg 27)
> Believe it or not, that actually stood out to me for some reason.  I 
> looked this up and apparently, Sony released PlayStation in the U.S 
> and UK only in 1995, and I'm guessing that this scene (which happens 
> during the summer right after their third year) is in 1994?  oh 
> well...I guess this goes to prove that...I have entirely too much 
> time on my hands.  :-)
> 
> ~P

In fact, Dudley could have had a Playstation in GoF. After all, the 
videoconsole did exist: it's not uncommon for people to buy importation 
machines, especially when the little brat is as spoilt as Dudley is (it 
has happened with PS2, and it probably happened with PSX). You just 
have to order the japanese version, which is out much sooner, buy 
japanese games for a while, and then put on a multi-system chip. Read 
all about this theory (which isn't mine) in the Lexicon,

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/hp-faq.html
(last question)

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Thu Apr 18 13:48:56 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:48:56 -0000
Subject: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
In-Reply-To: <13e.ceda0c1.29ef75a3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9mis8+ip4f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37931

I wrote:
> "To be able to accio an object, you must be able to see it 
> or be VERY familiar with it."   -Grey Wolf

To which Jacey answered:
> I have one problem with that. What about when Mrs. Weasly accio'ed 
> the toffees from Fred and George's persons? She probably wasn't 
> familiar with them and definitely couldn't see see. Perhaps that was 
> different because she was so close. You'll notice that when Harry
> summons his firebolt to him he says "accio 
> firebolt" but when Mrs. weasly used the charm she just said "accio."  
> Also, when Harry was practicing the charm earlier, I *think* he was 
> only saying "accio." Perhaps when a person is far away from the 
> object they need to say it's name, or maybe Harry just felt like 
> adding the word "firebolt" after "accio" because he felt like it, 
> with no real significance. Possibly saying the name out loud helps a
> person get a better mental image of it.
> 
> -Jacey

The last time this was discussed, I was in your potition, and answered 
with the same exact example: the accio of Mrs. Weasley. The only thing 
that bugs me about it is that it breaks the most fundamental rule: to 
know what you're accioning. They way I would have done it (if I had the 
power to do so) is by accioning the bottom of the pocket (which I know 
exists), thus making all the things fall from the pocket when this is 
reversed.

On the other hand, if you're pretty powerful (which Mrs. Weasley is), 
maybe knowing the aproximate size of the objets you could accio it even 
if you don't see it (more or less "I expect something the size of a big 
marble: I see it poking through the material"). Of course, if size and 
shape is enough, why doesn't that disqualify my previous post? Too many 
eggs of the same size and shape, and none of the champions are powerful 
enough to accio all of them (not to speack of the dragon who, seeing 
his eggs fly to the magician would promptly bake him), and plainly too 
far away in the case of the cup (distance could only be overcomed by 
extreme familiarity), for example.

I agree with your theory of the name-calling: it is only to provide 
further focus on what you're doing: to help think of the shape and size 
of the broomstick, Harry says it's name.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From laurence59 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 20:16:16 2002
From: laurence59 at yahoo.com (laurence59)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:16:16 -0000
Subject: Money and Squibs
In-Reply-To: <F286OtjTsLAU3CGG7920000ba40@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9kl6g+3q50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37932

It was asked if non magic people (muggles or squibs) could make 
potions. In Harry's first potions lesson, Snape said that many would 
not realise that magic is involved in the simple simmering in a 
brewing potion (or something like that). Therefore I would assume 
that potions can only be done by wizards. If muggles tried it then I 
would assume that they would be left with a couldron-full of potion 
ingredients all mixed up together...

Laurence




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Thu Apr 18 14:19:12 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:19:12 +1000
Subject: SHIP: LOLLIPOPS fights on
Message-ID: <004e01c1e6e4$1b67bd40$fd52dccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 37933

(WARNING: Post contains roleplaying whimsy)

Archgarchus:
> Am awaiting with baited breath permission to board this marvellous vessel

Captain Tabouli is overwhelmed.  She has already pressed a LOLLIPOPS badge and ticket onto Archgarchus, but so enthusiastic a reception to her Good Ship she has not witnessed in months!  She whips out her lollipop pink mobile phone and summons her musicians to play a march in honour of Archgarchus boarding the Ship and an escort of honour to lead Archgarchus to the deluxe suite in a shower of confetti.

In the midst of her welcoming party, however, one of the Captain's spies arrives with ill tidings.  Cindy, known member of the violent FEATHERBOAS fraternity, is rumoured to be perusing the lifeboats...

Cindy:
> I find my rather limited faith in LOLLIPOPS shaken to its 
very foundation, and that's saying something.

The Captain's eyes bulge in indignation.  What grounds has Cindy for this unspeakable wavering of faith in the proud and watertight Snape Loved Lily theory?

Elfundeb:
>Getting the Marauders in trouble 
> is not going to endear him to Lily

Cindy:
> But which way does this cut, though?  Would Snape want to have his 
fingerprints on an attempt to get James in trouble?  Wouldn't this 
necessarily get back to Lily and cause her to see him as a rather 
oily, gliding, prowling, slimy snake in the grass?<
>
>Or does it mean that Snape developed his Love of Lily later in their 
Hogwarts days -- sometime after the Prank?  Is Snape's Love of Lily 
simply wanting something he couldn't have just because his rival had 
it?  Have the LOLLIPOPS crewmembers come to an accord on this point?<

Captain Tabouli shakes her head emphatically, and marches off to the lifeboat wing, where Cindy is surreptitiously weighing a paddle in her hand.  The Captain whips the paddle away and indicates a chair in the corner with a very stern expression.  With unusual meekness, Cindy sits.

Now.  Let us first consider the developmental curve JKR has outlined for us in the Potterverse.  Girls, it seems, develop crushes as young as ten, but boys, from all she has shown us, don't emerge from the girl germs stage until around 13, and are still pretty awkward about the onset of hormones by fourth year, judging by Harry and Ron's agonies over the Yule Ball.  Given that James is Harry's father, and the resemblance between them, we would expect James to have developed an interest in girls in his mid-teens.  Presumably he would have had more confidence than Harry (not having been subjected to the Dursley treatment), but I'd say the evidence suggests that genuine Potterverse pair-bonding starts at about fifth year.  Percy is in fifth year when Ginny catches him snogging Penelope in the classroom; even the rosebush gropers don't appear to be in Harry's year.  Nope, my money is on boys starting to develop crushes and hankerings in fourth year, and pairing up not happening until fifth year.

The year when the Marauders cracked the Animagus code.  The year when the Prank happened.

>From first to third year, the rivalry between the Marauders and Snape is boyish.  They are cocky and smart and popular; he is underhand and resentful.  He tries to get them into trouble, they bait and ridicule him for being a curse-happy greasy tell-tale.  Snape, being far less confident and prone to grudges (as well we know), *hates* this.  Suffers immeasurably.  Since they are all in Potions classes together, this is prime persecution time, and as their boyish bickering escalates in fourth year, it is observed by one pretty, principled young redhead.  Who confronts the Marauders for being such bullies: leave poor Snape alone.

Never before has someone stood up for Snape.  Let alone a pretty red-haired girl.  He is smitten, nay, consumed.  The Marauders, on the other hand, are irritated.  Can't this prissy do-gooder see what a loser he is?  That he deserves everything he gets?  (witness Sirius' continued sneers at Snape as an adult, his smirkily allowing Snape's head to bang on the ceiling of the Shrieking Shack corridor).  When they pick up that Snape has developed a monster crush on Lily, they find this hilarious.  Snape is of course far too insecure to act on his feelings, but gazes anguished from the sideline, watching her every move, tallying every minute she spends talking to other boys.  Naturally, he resents every *millisecond* Lily spends talking to his arch-enemies, the Marauders.

Quidditch is the worst of it.  (remember how everyone in the books so far tries to palm off Snape's jealousy as Quidditch alone?)  Lily is in Gryffindor, and regularly watches James and cheers him on in Quidditch games!!  It *destroys* him to see it.  Makes him ill with jealousy and hatred.  (Should he take up Quidditch?)  Somehow, somehow, he must get rid of his rivals, or at least smear them so conclusively in Lily's eyes that she will never respect them again.

Now.  What does Lily hate?  Cruelty.  Bullying.  Immature practical jokes aimed at victimising people.  (I ask you, Cindy and Elfundeb, do *you* think Lily would have approved of the goings-on in the grounds, the running around with a werewolf?  I seriously doubt it).  Remember, too, that Snape was not, from what Sirius says, playing nasty jokes himself to get them into trouble.  No, he was snooping about *trying to get them expelled*.  Which to me says that he was trying to get them caught breaking valid school rules.

Reiterating Elfundeb:
> >Getting the Marauders in trouble is not going to endear him to Lily

If Lily is a girl of principles and fairness who is prepared to confront taunting schoolboys about their cruelty (as she is in my version of LOLLIPOPS, and remember she was made headgirl, which lends weight to this), I imagine she would see them getting into trouble for doing cruel and irresponsible things as entirely just.  A way of teaching them to be more mature and considerate.  Hence Snape wanted to catch them doing something which *Lily* would disapprove of, to prove their villainy.  And hey, whatever Lupin's up to every month looks very fishy indeed, don't you think?  Bound to be breaking some serious rules.  Time to start the snooping which ultimately led to the Prank...

I say the Lily/James relationship only started after the Prank, whereas Snape's crush predated it.  Think about it.  There's nothing like you and your best friend nearly getting torn to pieces and/or turned into werewolves by another close friend to teach a boy a sobering lesson.  I'd bet that rivalrous antics (if not the hatred, obviously) toned down a lot after the Prank.  Snape probably went into shock and lay low, sticking with his fellow Slytherins.  Likewise, the incident prompted a little maturation among the Marauders, executing a lot less nasty pranks, which would no doubt have softened Lily towards them.  
It's not impossible that if she found out about James' courageous rescue, she may even have been impressed.  Subdued and shocked, James began to realise Lily had in fact had a point.  One day, they are prac partners in Potions, and, now freed from his irritation at her moral stance on his behaviour, he notices how lovely she is...

Yup, if you date James and Lily's relationship from maybe a few months post-Prank, it all fits.  No problem for LOLLIPOPS at all.  A major problem for Snape, of course, who is so beside himself with anguish and bitterness he retreats deeper and deeper into the circles of the junior Death Eaters, and leaves school to join Voldemort and punish the world that has wronged him...

Tabouli (polishing her Captain's badge)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dorbandb at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 18 13:51:14 2002
From: dorbandb at yahoo.com (dorbandb)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:51:14 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, Flamel, and Fawkes
In-Reply-To: <a9lqb6+685f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9mj0i+hpnq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37934

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" <zoehooch at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dorbandb" <dorbandb at y...> wrote:
 
> I thought it was pretty clear Nicholas Flamel was not a wizard. He's 
> an alchemist. 
> 
> Zoe Hooch


Hi Zoe,

I admire your ability to see through JKR's attempts to misdirect us 
regarding Flamel's status - wizard or muggle.  I venture to guess that 
you, Zoe, are in the minority of readers who saw this "clearly."  


It was not so clear to me; in that he is presented to us within the 
context of the wizarding world (on the wizard collecting card - 
although not *his own* card - and we don't know that he even has his 
own card, but I think we are supposed to assume he does), with 
impeccable personal ties to the WW (his partner, Dumbledore), and that 
he is universally known to the WW, I think it was/is JKR's intention 
for us to *assume* that Flamel was *obviously* a wizard. 


Flamel is described as an alchemist -  "...the noted alchemist and 
opera lover." I'm not sure that being an alchemist tells us 
whether Flamel is a muggle or a wizard.  recent discussions have 
touched upon whether a muggle *could* do potions, after all, it's not 
much different than chemistry(sorry, don't know the exact posts.) But, 
being a muggle myself, *I* didn't know whether alchemist were 
*exclusively* wizard or muggle.  An alchemist *may* be a wizard 
*or* a muggle, I think.  The key for me was the whole episode where 
Hermione retrieves "...an enormous old book" that she has on hand for 
"a bit of light reading."  She "never thought to look in here!"  
Flamel was not found in Great Wizards of the Twentieth Century, nor 
Notable Magical Names of Our Time, nor Important Modern Magical 
Discoveries, nor A Study of Recent Developments in Wizardry.  Flamel 
*is* found in a suspiciously unnamed tome.  After they read about 
Flamel, Ron completes our distraction by rationalizing "And no wonder 
we couldn't find Flamel in that Study of Recent Developments in 
Wizardry...he's not exactly recent if he's six-hundred and sixty five, 
is he?"  At this point (tenth reading or so), I guessed that Ron's 
reason wasn't the *real* reason that he wasn't in *any* of the books 
they searched.  The *real* reason they found Flamel was that the 
unnamed book retrieved by Hermione was something like Who's Who of the 
British Isles, Ancient Times to Present - Abridged(It *is* only *one* 
volume) - a regular muggle reference book.  Oh, I thought. I'm slow 
that way.  

Even now that I see it, I don't know what it means.  Most assume that 
Flamel is, in fact, dead *now*. Just as we (I know I did) assumed that 
Flamel was a wizard.  I now think this is a (maybe *THE*) giant 
misdirection on JKR's part, and that Flamel will make an in-person 
appearance at some point.  I have no clue as to the plot. I feel 
fortunate to catch even *some* of these hints/red herrings - they are 
hardly clear to me. 

Just my thoughts,

Brian






From brooksar at indy.net  Thu Apr 18 12:51:58 2002
From: brooksar at indy.net (Brooks Rowlett)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:51:58 -0500
Subject: Accio Use  (Was Re: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!)
References: <1019124378.78507.99813.m10@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CBEC16E.5050505@indy.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37935

> I'm guessing anti-accio charms are well accepted at Hogwart's. 
> Otherwise it would be much easier to get the Polyjuice Potion 
> ingredients in book 2 (Yes I know they haven't learned it yet) but 
> Moody would have used accio to summon the same ingredients in Book 4. 
> Instead, he had to physically enter Snape's Office (Possibly wearing 
> his own invisibility cloak.)


Well, we don't know if the 'broom hangar' was closed, or if Harry pre-arranged 
to get the door open, but I bet summoned things just bounce against closed 
cabinet/cupboard/closet doors.  I doubt they can dematerialize through them....

-Brooks A Rowlett








From nitsirk1969 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 18 14:39:00 2002
From: nitsirk1969 at yahoo.com (Kristin)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] ADMIN:  Book 5 Discussion to OT Chatter or Announcements
In-Reply-To: <a9hfaf+potq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020418143900.11763.qmail@web13807.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37936


 Thanks I was already yelled at by 3 other members.  I will not post any more.  Again sorry i will probably just be watching in the back ground!
  cindysphynx <cindysphynx at comcast.net> wrote: Just a quick reminder from Hexquarters that discussions of possible 
release dates for OoP should take place off the main list. 

To reiterate, HP-Announcements is the place for confirmed information 
about the OoP release date. This includes messages with a link to a 
*real* news report from a reputable and verifiable source, not just 
rumor and speculation. The Announcements list is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfGU-Announcements/

OT-Chatter is the place for OoP handwringing, hand-holding, wild-
eyed speculation, wishful thinking, insider information, 12-step 
programs and the like. The OT-Chatter list is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/

Thanks for your cooperation.

Cindy
--The Magical Moderators




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


Kristin :o)


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Thu Apr 18 15:02:54 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:02:54 -0000
Subject: The Rat That Got Away (filk)
Message-ID: <a9mn6u+rccp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37937

The Rat That Got Away (from PoA, Chap. 20) 

Dedicated to Mike Gray

(To the tune of The Man That Got Away, from the 1954 film A Star is 
Born)

Hear a 30-second clip of this song at:

http://music.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp?ean=724349807129


THE SCENE: The tunnel leading away from the Shrieking Shack.  With 
PETTIGREW in (seemingly) secure custody, the Trio and their allies 
meet sudden catastrophe.

HERMIONE
The path is narrow
Black's proved he's a straight arrow
Ron's leg is broken
And Snape's not yet awoken
Let's all make sure that
The rat won't get away

BLACK (to HARRY)
No more the Dursley drill
You'll live with me until
Adult-size robes you fill,
This I'll say.

(Once outside, the clouds part to reveal the full moon. Lupin stops 
abruptly, and begins transforming into a werewolf)

HARRY
The moon grows fuller
Lupin is growing furrier
Our favorite teacher
Turns into a Dark creature
Forgot his potion
And takes up wolfish ways

PETTIGREW
I'll flee from Hogwarts Hall
And in ratty shape I'll crawl
Toward where the Dark Lord calls
Straight away.

Good riddance, good-bye 

(Pettigrew transforms into Scabbers and scampers off)

HARRY, SIRIUS & HERMIONE
Every trick of yours we're on to 

SCABBERS
But fools will be fools and I'm off pronto

(Sirius transforms into Padfoot to keep the vicious Lupin at bay)

HERMIONE 
Lupin gets malign
But Sirius gets canine
He drives off Remus
Now 'mentors come to cream us
They have us set up 
Harry and Black and me 

HARRY & HERMIONE 
Ever since this year began 
There is nothing meaner than
A grim dementor
Looking for the man that got away 

(A swarm of dementors converge. Black and Hermione both faint. A 
dementor pushes aside Harry's ineffective attempt at a Patronus, and 
lifts him aloft in order to administer the dread Kiss.)

HARRY
Our hope gets bleaker,
My magic's getting weaker,
My patron's feeble,
Now the Axis of Evil 
Brings back Mum's screamin'
To kiss us off today

(Suddenly, in response to a blazing white light, the dementors 
withdraw)

But a silver-blazing bright
Puts the dementors to flight
A grateful orphan
Rescued by that man
The dad who's back today

My dad came back today
..

(Unable to identify its source, Harry faints as the blinding light 
drives the last of the dementors far afield.) 

  - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Apr 18 18:02:16 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:02:16 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew and the Sorting Hat
In-Reply-To: <a9kiul+a7j1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9n1n8+k8r0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37938

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "greg_a126" <grega126 at a...> wrote:
> I always love reading these discussions about what house Peter was 
> in.  Because he certainly doesn't seem brave enough for Gryffindor 
> nor does it seem likely that James, Sirius and Remus (almost 
> undoubtedly Gryffindors) would be friends with him if he was in 
> Slytherin.  
> 
> I think the common assumption among people is that the Sorting Hat 
> takes what it sees and makes a decision based on that.  Is it not at 
> all possible that the Sorting Hat's job for people like Peter is to 
> force them to grow as people.  Perhaps the Sorting Hat hoped that by 
> placing Peter in Gryffindor, "Home of the Brave", some of their 
> bravery would rub off on him.  As incompetent as he is often 
> portrayed, he did manage the Animagus transformation, not to mention 
> come up with a plan that sent Sirius to prison while he was made a 
> hero.  If his friends' bravery had rubbed off a little better, he 
> probably would've made an extremely useful wizard for Light Magic.
> 
> Greg
> 


Well, well. Is Pettigrew brave? again. The time-honoured question that 
I change my mind on every time it's brought up.

I used to say he was a complete coward till Elkins pointed out that he 
chops off his own arm, bolts for it on pain of death in PoA, and 
frames Sirius rathering daringly. On the other hand, he's not brave 
enough to stand up to Voldemort.

I vote for Pettigrew being very brave and very cowardly. Can I do 
that? But I also think that he used to be more righteously brave, and 
he's lost that over the years.

Eileen




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Thu Apr 18 18:17:03 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:17:03 -0000
Subject: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
In-Reply-To: <a9mis8+ip4f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9n2iv+l71b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37939

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > "To be able to accio an object, you must be able to see it 
> > or be VERY familiar with it."   -Grey Wolf

Jacey answered: 
 You'll notice that when Harry
> > summons his firebolt to him he says "accio 
> > firebolt" but when Mrs. weasly used the charm she just 
said "accio."  
> > Also, when Harry was practicing the charm earlier, I *think* he 
was 
> > only saying "accio." Perhaps when a person is far away from the 
> > object they need to say it's name, or maybe Harry just felt like 
> > adding the word "firebolt" after "accio" because he felt like 
it, 
> > with no real significance. Possibly saying the name out loud 
helps a
> > person get a better mental image of it.

Grey wolf replied:

> 
> I agree with your theory of the name-calling: it is only to 
provide 
> further focus on what you're doing: to help think of the shape and 
size 
> of the broomstick, Harry says it's name.
> 

If Harry had just said,"accio broomstick" he probably would have 
been bombarded with every school broom in the sheds.  IIRC, his 
broomstick is the only Firebolt in the school.
I agree that Mrs Weasleys "accio" obtaining exactly the tainted 
toffees she was after is fairly baffling.  My reasoning on that is 
that as a fully trained and presumably powerful witch, she only 
needs to say accio, point her wand in the general direction of what 
she wants and concentrate on the desired objects.

Jo Serenadust





From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 18 18:26:24 2002
From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Peter, Barty Crouch-slytherin?
Message-ID: <20020418182624.63207.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37940


I vote for Pettigrew being very brave and very cowardly. Can I do 
that? But I also think that he used to be more righteously brave, and 
he's lost that over the years.

Eileen


I'm with you on that I think he is lacks fear on some levels but is a coward in that he is afraid of standing up to people he fears.  I mean I don't think he truly feared Sirius, I mean when your a friends with a person it's really hard to fear them.  Especially because you know almost everything about the person.  

But I do not think that Pettigrew's bravery is really that simple.  Perhaps, we just don't know what type of bravery Pettigrew is truly capable of I don't think we have seen it as of yet.  I'm really thinking a possible redemption is in the future for him as well, I mean if we are right in assuming that he is a Gryffindor then she placed him there for a reason, and that was either to prove that evil exists everywhere or that Pettigrew has the capabilities of redeeming himself and showing true, " good" bravery and eventually work to overcome Voldemort.  

That is a bit of a speculation though, I'm sort of voting for the sorting hat not being all that reliable.  But then again we don't really know about that.

Question:  Do we know whether or not Barty Crouch, Jr was a slytherin?  I can't remember.

 

Melanie



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 18 16:47:15 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:47:15 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Changing of the Mods
Message-ID: <a9mtaj+7trm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37941

Hello HPfGUers,

As I've informed the other Moderators, List Elves, and Resident 
Poltergeists, I sadly must resign from Moderatorship <politely 
declines as Tabouli rushes up gesticulating towards the Good Ship 
LOLLIPOPS gangplank--thanks, hon, I'll spend some time on land>.  The 
demands of real life, much as I try to keep them at bay so I can 
concentrate on the really interesting stuff, require me to choose 
between Moderating this list or actually reading it <g>.  So you 
won't be seeing any more ADMINs from me, but I hope you'll be seeing 
more regular posts now that I can put my feet up and be a carefree 
listie.

This is a terrific community, the best online group I've ever been a 
part of, and it's been an honor to help make it work.  

Amy Z

----------------------------------------
 Then, with a final nod to Harry, and a
 swift smile, Lupin left the office.
       --HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban
----------------------------------------




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 18 21:04:09 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:04:09 -0000
Subject: How a Summoning Charm works (was "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!)
In-Reply-To: <a9n2iv+l71b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9ncc9+lc39@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37942

Jo Serenadust speculated:

> If Harry had just said,"accio broomstick" he probably would have 
> been bombarded with every school broom in the sheds.  IIRC, his 
> broomstick is the only Firebolt in the school.
> I agree that Mrs Weasleys "accio" obtaining exactly the tainted 
> toffees she was after is fairly baffling.  My reasoning on that is 
> that as a fully trained and presumably powerful witch, she only 
> needs to say accio, point her wand in the general direction of what 
> she wants and concentrate on the desired objects.

As we know, a Summoning Charm has a much wider radius than just the 
1/4 mile to the castle or whatever it is; Harry later considers 
Summoning an aqualung, of which the nearest one is probably miles 
away, and although he rejects that solution to the 2nd Task, the 
reason isn't because he can't Summon something from that far away.  I 
think Harry gets only his Firebolt and not the one leaning against a 
broomshed at Chaser Moran's country place in County Clare not because 
of distance but because of intention--the same reason Jo gives for 
Mrs. Weasley's success.  I wrote about this way back when in message 
20352:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/20352

also at the Lexicon:

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ and search for "nature of magic"

I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Amy Z




From arclevel at mtu.edu  Thu Apr 18 14:56:56 2002
From: arclevel at mtu.edu (arcleveland)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:56:56 -0000
Subject: Wherefore Art Thou Draco
In-Reply-To: <a9ma25+kjl3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9mmro+1qcp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37943

More thoughts on Draco, his comments on Cedric, and whether or not he 
has or should have started questioning his beliefs.

Marina:
>"But if
>Cedric Diggory's death hasn't made him start questioning if 
>Voldemort is really good, then what the heck will it take? Cedric 
>was not a Mudblood, and while he may have been a Muggle-lover, 
>we don't see him conspicuously hanging around with any Muggle-
>borns the way Ron and Harry do. He's a nice, pureblood wizard 
>from an inoffensive house. There's no indication that he ever 
>had any problems with Draco. Now he's dead just 'cause he 
>happened to be standing next to Harry at the wrong time -- and 
>Draco doesn't seem to see anything wrong with that. Would it 
>have been different if he actually saw Cedric's dead body, or
>heard Voldemort coldly saying "Kill the spare?" I don't know."

Marina, in a later post:
>"But Cedric really is dead; Ron and Hermione really are targets 
>for future killings. And Draco *gloats* about it."

Heidi:
>"We don't even know if Draco knows that Cedric was
>killed simply because he was standing next to Harry.
>They were told that Cediric was a good, kind boy who
>was killed because he crossed the path of Voldemort -
>what does that mean?"

  
I'd say that it's a combination of these things that leads me
to believe that there's more to that speech than we're
seeing. First, I doubt that Draco knows how Cedric's death 
happened.  He may believe that Cedric was acting against Voldemort 
and was killed because of it.  The primary evidence for this 
would be that Voldemort killed him ? circular logic, yes, but
quite 
reasonable if you've grown up believing that Voldemort was good 
or right.

Second, I don't think Draco is gloating over the fact that
Cedric's dead.  He's at least outwardly gloating over the
Dark Lord's return and the fact that his worst enemies are prime 
targets, but I don't think he planned to say that about Cedric.  
It seemed more like he was saying what he wanted to about the 
people who were there, and it simply occurred to him that really, 
Cedric had died first, and he said it without really thinking.  
Still callous and cruel, yes, but not gloating. 

Taking Marina's points that Cedric's death ought to make
Draco understand death and Voldemort are largely what makes me 
suspect that he doesn't, actually, or that he's uncertain and 
trying to hide it.  Draco, as far as we know, had no reason to 
dislike Cedric, and had spent the entire year rooting for him.  
It would make sense for this to lead him to question why Cedric 
died and death on the whole, but it's only been a week or so.  
It may not have sunk in.  Also, we don't have evidence that he 
and Cedric were close, or really knew each other.  It may have 
been a distant enough death, on a personal level, that he could 
still have viewed it in the abstract.  Alternately, this is also 
a big part of my basis for my theory that he really is questioning 
things, or is at least somewhat conflicted, and trying to make 
sure no one suspects how he's feeling.  

Heidi: 
>"Nowhere does Dumbledore do a big speach about living together 
>and building bridges among the houses (schools, yes!
>houses - never a word!) and becoming understanding of
>other witches & wizards regardless of background. He
>never does it."

David:
>"I believe that from Draco's POV, it is very obvious what 
>the 'Hogwarts Doctrine' on Muggles, people of partial wizarding 
>blood, and magically disabled people, is. 
 Draco knows that 
>this is a man who lets Muggle-borns into Hogwarts, employs a 
>Squib, and allows ghosts, werewolves and half-giants (and of 
>the alleged servant class) to be on the teaching staff."

I agree that Dumbledore's philosophy does show up in daily life
at Hogwarts, but that doesn't mean that it shows up in a way 
that Draco can respond to.  Draco's been raised with a rather 
poor opinion of Dumbledore, too.  Moreover, he sees in Dumbledore 
someone who extensively favors his enemies, particularly Harry, 
and has been known to steal the House Cup away from his own house 
and hand it to their archrival, once in a very cruel way.  In 
this, Dumbledore definitely could be seen as increasing the 
divisions among houses, rather than bringing them together.

Dumbledore does bring all sorts of people into the castle, but
let's take a look at Draco's interactions with them.  We
don't know if there are any Muggle-borns in Slytherin, but I 
would guess that there aren't any in Draco's year, at least.  
As such, the Muggle-born he has the most contact with is a 
Gryffindor know-it-all who's friends with Harry and Ron and 
who's had the gall to beat him academically, thus getting him 
into trouble with his father.  Logically, Hermione is a high 
recommendation for the abilities and general worth of Muggle-
borns.  From Draco's perspective, at least emotionally, not at
all.  

As for the staff, he may not know Filch is a squib (and none of the 
students that we see like Filch anyway), and Lupin and Hagrid are his 
least favorite teachers.  He primarily doesn't like Lupin because
he wears shabby robes, which is a bad reason to dislike someone, 
but we don't know whether Lupin's ever done much to endear
himself personally to Draco.  The Gryffindors love him initially 
because of his handling of Peeve's and Neville's boggart; the 
Slytherins wouldn't have seen him with Peeve's and could
dislike 
him additionally due to the boggart incident.  Draco is cruel and 
rude to Hagrid, also primarily because he thinks of him as a servant, 
but Hagrid's not so sweet to him, either (usually responding to
Draco), and is another friend of Harry's.  Draco thinks very
little of Hagrid's teaching abilities and tries to get him fired, 
but then again, plenty of people on this list don't think much of
Hagrid's teaching abilities either.  

Yes, Dumbledore's got a lot of people around who don't fit 
Draco's "ideal person" bill, but none of them, that
we've seen, are in a position to make Draco really question his 
beliefs.  That said, though, Draco's getting to the point where 
his prejudices can't be blamed on his father but are becoming his 
own, even if that's just because he's never felt the need to 
question them.

Manda, who likes her characters as psychologically complex as possible





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 18 22:01:56 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:01:56 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew and the Sorting Hat
In-Reply-To: <a9n1n8+k8r0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9nfok+s3q5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37944

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., 
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "greg_a126" <grega126 at a...> wrote:
> > I think the common assumption among people is that the Sorting 
> > Hat takes what it sees and makes a decision based on that.  As 
> > incompetent as he is often portrayed, he did manage the Animagus 
> > transformation, not to mention come up with a plan that sent 
> > Sirius to prison while he was made a hero.  If his friends' 
> > bravery had rubbed off a little better, he probably would've made 
> > an extremely useful wizard for Light Magic.

"lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> Well, well. Is Pettigrew brave? again. 

I'm reminded of Dumbledore's speech in ChoS about the importance of 
choices. EVERY good War movie I ever watched has a speech about 
bravery not being the absence of fearm, but making the right choice 
in the presence of fear.

> I used to say he was a complete coward till Elkins pointed out that 
> he chops off his own arm, bolts for it on pain of death in PoA, and 
> frames Sirius rathering daringly. On the other hand, he's not brave 
> enough to stand up to Voldemort.
> 
> I vote for Pettigrew being very brave and very cowardly. Can I do 
> that? But I also think that he used to be more righteously brave, 
> and he's lost that over the years.

I think Pettigrew's choice was the promises of power from Voldemort 
over the rewards of friendship from the Potter's, Sirius, and Lupin. 
For whatever unrevealed reason he resented the Potter's enough to 
betray them. I read rumors that future books will show why Valdemort 
wanted the Potter's dead. I look forward to reading the real history 
of Pettigrew's betrayal.

On a side note, I've been posting on the true nature of Pettigrew's 
silver hand. I read a post that just as Pettigrew owes Harry a life 
debt for saving his life, Voldemort owes Pettigrew a debt and How 
does LV reward him? With the Silver hand!

I'm sure LV promised Pettigrew great power for his sacrifice in his 
resurrection. What powers are in the hand exactly?

I'm thinking the 'silver' of the hand might be similar magic to 
Dumbledore's Pensieve, giving Voldemort some sort of awareness 
through Pettigrew. This would give LV a great spy to infiltrate 
Dumbledore's camp and maybe Hogwart's and I'm guessing would give 
Pettigrew much stronger magic. It might also enable Voldemort to 
control Pettigrew if he ever is tempted to repay his debt to Harry 
through some good act.

Ideas?
Uncmark




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 18 21:18:29 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:18:29 -0000
Subject: Accio Use  (Was Re: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!)
In-Reply-To: <3CBEC16E.5050505@indy.net>
Message-ID: <a9nd75+rnst@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37945

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Brooks Rowlett <brooksar at i...> wrote:
> > I'm guessing anti-accio charms are well accepted at Hogwart's. 
> > Otherwise it would be much easier to get the Polyjuice Potion 
> > ingredients in book 2 (Yes I know they haven't learned it yet) 
> > but Moody would have used accio to summon the same ingredients in 
> > Book 4. Instead, he had to physically enter Snape's Office 
> > (Possibly wearing his own invisibility cloak.)
> 
> Well, we don't know if the 'broom hangar' was closed, or if Harry 
> pre-arranged to get the door open, but I bet summoned things just 
> bounce against closed cabinet/cupboard/closet doors.  I doubt they 
> can dematerialize through them....

I thought Harry was keeping his Firebolt in his room. Does the window 
of Gryffindor Tower open? Or did Harry leave the broom someplace 
open? Possibly the top of one of the towers or the roof of Hagrid's 
hut?

Uncmark




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Thu Apr 18 18:02:42 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:02:42 -0000
Subject: Sirius' gift (wasPlot Holes/Portkeys/Sirius vs. Severus)
In-Reply-To: <a9kd0e+38d4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9n1o2+19mu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37946

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:

> 
> Second Task: What happened to the knife Sirius sent Harry? It 
would 
> have been *very* useful in freeing the "victims", also from 
getting 
> free from the ropes before Pettigrew took Harry's blood...
> 

I think that the knife Sirius gave Harry will be very useful in a 
future book. I was imagining that he could certainly use it back at 
the Dursleys the next time they decide to "confine" him, and since 
he wouldn't technically be *using magic*, it wouldn't get him in 
trouble with the MOM.  Of course, it could be even more useful in a 
death-eater situation, and I won't be surprised to see it playing a 
major role in a life-threatening situation in a (hopefully, someday?)
future book.  Sirius sure does buy Harry some excellent presents, 
doesn't he?
> 


Finwitch wrote:
> I wonder if Sirius Black and Severus Snape will settle their 
> differences- As Harry put it, Dumbledore was asking for a near 
> miracle! Hmm... Arguement over how one should treat Harry? That 
would 
> be some scene!
> 

Nah, I doubt that they will ever really settle their differences, 
although they will be forced to cooperate for the good of the WW.
They're like oil and water, those two.
(Guess which one is the oil <g>)

Jo Serenadust




From megalynn44 at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 18 18:26:49 2002
From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Meghan Stancil)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:26:49 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Have Slytherins always been hated?
Message-ID: <F1443WfkxERL3kxs4rx0000376f@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37947

This leads to a further question: was Peter a Gryffindor evil
enough to betray his best friend or a Slytherin dumb enough to
have a pal called James Potter?

Jo has given us no conclusive proof - either in canon or in
interviews - that *any* of the marauders actually belonged to
Gryffindor.[1] However, granted the close parallels between Harry
and James (in particular their enmity with Snape and Draco), it
is very difficult to imagine James (at least) in any other house.

snip

Further, although fans have often speculated that the four
friends came from different houses, we have yet to see a close,
non-romantic friendship between members of differing houses -
particularly if one of the houses is Slytherin.

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ok it's not as prevalent in this thread as others, but many here
seem to think that slytherins have always been hated, but I have never
seen it that way. I always thought the hatred of Slytherins was fairly
recent as a form of backlash after Voldemort. Just because a majority of
Slytherins were the wrongdoers in the Vold War I doesn't mean others
have gone astray in the past. Also the slytherins are portrayed even
worse due to Harry's POV.

So anyways to sum up, maybe the Slytherins weren't hated when the
Marauders were in school. Maybe that is a fairly recent development.


Megs


_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com





From domigu at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 13:56:19 2002
From: domigu at yahoo.com (domigu)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:56:19 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore wand / animagus form?
Message-ID: <a9juu3+9tbe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37948

Any thoughts about kind of wand characateristics Dumbledore's wand 
may have (pheonix feather?)and being that he is a transfiguration 
master what, if any, his animagus form is (not a bumblebee).

Domigu





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Apr 18 18:23:07 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:23:07 -0000
Subject: Wherefore Art Thou Draco
In-Reply-To: <a9ma25+kjl3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9n2ub+dhid@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37949

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:

> I know they're true.  That, IMO, is precisely what makes Draco's 
> behavior in that scene so atrocious.  If he was simply engaging in 
> empty posturing, I'd be more willing to dismiss it.  But Cedric 
> really is dead; Ron and Hermione really are targets for future 
> killings.  And Draco *gloats* about it.  I find it nauseating, and 
> the truth of what he's saying is what makes it nauseating.

Marina, you're spot on. It's the fact that they're true which shows 
Draco has (permanently or temporarily) gone over the edge. I never 
understood HRHFG's response at first, until September 13th, 2001. On 
that day, my 16 year old brother got into a fist fight with some jerk 
who said, "Stupid Americans deserved it!" Now, I don't think my 
brother should have reacted like that (I'm a very non-violent person 
myself), and I don't think the trio, Fred, and George should have 
either. It only makes more problems in the end. But, suddenly I could 
understand why they did it, just as I could understand what made my 
brother snap. It had been a heart-wrenching few days, as you all 
remember, made worse by hours of uncertainty in our case as to whether 
some friends of mine were among the dead (thank God they weren't! 
September 12th they were going to be in the building on business, as 
it turned out), and then to have some idiot talk like that.... It's 
the fact that there has been death and suffering, that makes it 
unbearable. Never mind the origins of terrorism, your opinion of 
foreign policy, your like for the U.S. (my bro. was a bit 
anti-American at the time, actually), but to gloat over death is too 
much.

Eileen, whose brother has become the house's resident American 
non-American, wraps himself in the Stars and Stripes, and pretends 
he's not a citizen of the country that we actually do live in (my Mom 
calls it a stage)




From j-lipton at nwu.edu  Thu Apr 18 16:51:48 2002
From: j-lipton at nwu.edu (Jamie Lipton)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:51:48 -0500
Subject: Pettigrew & Sorting Hat & Only Children
Message-ID: <002c01c1e6f9$54f3e600$03fea8c0@death-computer>

No: HPFGUIDX 37950

Greg wrote:

<I think the common assumption among people is that the Sorting Hat
takes what it sees and makes a decision based on that.  Is it not at
all possible that the Sorting Hat's job for people like Peter is to
force them to grow as people.>

We do see evidence of this in Harry's struggle with the Sorting Hat.  It
wants to place him in Slytherin so that he will accomplish great things,
even though it doesn't seem like Harry is a very ambitious sort of person.

The Sorting Hat seems to have a bias when it comes to families.  Parvati and
Padma are in different houses, but generally, students are in the same house
as their other family members.  Look at the Weasleys - all in Gryffindor.
Percy Weasley (and I'm sure the Percy-lovers on the list will come running
to his defence) doesn't exactly scream "Gryffindor"...he has the
intelligence of a Ravenclaw, the work ethic of a Hufflepuff, and the
ambition of a Slytherin - and he really doesn't seem very intrepid or brave.
I'm sure the Sorting Hat had a difficult time with him.  But his brothers
(and parents?) had been in Gryffindor, and he may have consciously asked the
Hat to be placed there.  Or the hat may have drawn on his family history
because it was having difficulty placing him.

The tendency of the Sorting Hat to sort by family is also apparent with all
the Slytherin families.  And the fact that it originally wanted to put Harry
in Slytherin makes me think he had relatives in that house - possibly
Slytherin himself.  Of course, he also had relatives in Gryffindor, so that
could go either way.

My point: if family history is heavily weighted in the Sorting equation, it
may help to explain people like Peter Pettigrew and Neville Longbottom, who
aren't as good at magic as their peers, and (whether as a result of that or
some other reason) don't seem brave enough to be in Gryffindor.  My bet is
that both Peter and Neville had at least one parent in Gryffindor.
Actually, my hope is that Peter had a sibling in Gryffindor, which brings me
to another issue (meriting a new paragraph)...

Why do so many wizarding families seem to have only one child?  Granted, JKR
may just not have gotten around to mentioning siblings, but it seems
disproportionate.  We do know that there aren't very many pairs (or larger
groupings) of siblings at Hogwarts.  It looks like James Potter and Sirius
Black are only children, as well.  If this trend continues, the entire
British Wizarding World will have descended from Weasleys, who as far as I
can tell are the only family in canon to have more than two children.
(Correct me if I'm wrong.)

- Jamie






From kellybroughton at netscape.net  Fri Apr 19 01:21:19 2002
From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:21:19 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore wand / animagus form?
Message-ID: <2253001F.0B44C454.B13B89B9@netscape.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37951

I've wondered this myself, and posted this question elsewhere. For some reason, I keep thinking he's a unicorn. Phoenix would be too cliche, imo.

-kel

"domigu" <domigu at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Any thoughts about kind of wand characateristics Dumbledore's wand 
>may have (pheonix feather?)and being that he is a transfiguration 
>master what, if any, his animagus form is (not a bumblebee).
>
>Domigu
>
>
>


-- 





__________________________________________________________________
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 sopranoham at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 18 18:45:02 2002
From: sopranoham at yahoo.com (Soprano Ham)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Powerful Weasleys (WAS: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!)
In-Reply-To: <a9n2iv+l71b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020418184502.34971.qmail@web13001.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37952

Good Afternoon All,

--- serenadust <jmmears at prodigy.net> wrote:
> I agree that Mrs Weasleys "accio" obtaining exactly
> the tainted 
> toffees she was after is fairly baffling.  My
> reasoning on that is 
> that as a fully trained and presumably powerful
> witch, she only 
> needs to say accio, point her wand in the general
> direction of what 
> she wants and concentrate on the desired objects.
> 
> Jo Serenadust

I'd like to add a new spin to this (I hope it's new
anyhow). I absolutely agree with Jo, but wanted to
point out that the Weasly's have been thus far
portrayed as the cuddly, earthy-type wizards. However,
I am betting that they are extremely powerful wizards
who played a big part in the previous battle with
Voldemort and will be instrumental in the next
'chapter'. 

Sop

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 18 21:57:08 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:57:08 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore, Flamel, and Fawkes
Message-ID: <F36sJ9amqkhqntKrUV000000516@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37953

Brian wrote:
>Even now that I see it, I don't know what it means.  Most assume that
>Flamel is, in fact, dead *now*. Just as we (I know I did) assumed that
>Flamel was a wizard.  I now think this is a (maybe *THE*) giant
>misdirection on JKR's part, and that Flamel will make an in-person
>appearance at some point.  I have no clue as to the plot. I feel
>fortunate to catch even *some* of these hints/red herrings - they are
>hardly clear to me.

I assumed that Flamel died shortly after the goings-on in P/SS. Just the way 
Dumbledore worded it when Harry asked him, "He has enough elixir to set his 
affairs in order." (That's not a direct quote, but its definitely close.) It 
just made me think that he was going to settle things of estate and whatnot 
and then die peacefully. I never really gave him being a wizard or not a 
wizard much thought, truthfully.  JKR always has something up her sleeve -- 
perhaps Flamel will be the wild card that she manages to flash at us.

Liz

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From editor at texas.net  Fri Apr 19 02:29:17 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:29:17 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
References: <a9jl0u+nsua@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01ae01c1e74a$01c701a0$367c63d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37954

Anglinsbees said

> Ah- but he <did> summon it into his hand in the cemetary- in order
> to portkey back with Cedrics body.  My problem with this scene is
> that in this instnce, the portkey seems to work differently than the
> way portkeys did previously.  If a portkey takes you back whre it
> came from the second time you touch it, it would create all sorts of
> handling problems at the World cup- and they handled the used
> portkeys vary casually, tossing them in a box.

Prior to the Triwizard Cup turning out to be a portkey, our sample of
portkey behavior is n=1. The Triwizard Cup brings us up to n=2. So it's
difficult to generalize from this, but here's what I had worked out.

I had speculated before that the portkey spell involves two things: the
enchantment for the actual transport, plus the caster's specifying a
"trigger" which activates it. The portkeys which were made for the World Cup
were set so their trigger was a certain time, allowing the sequencing of
arrivals. The portkey spell which Moody/Crouch cast on the Triwizard cup had
a different trigger, namely touch.

I don't know if the World Cup portkeys were re-usable, the way the Triwizard
Cup was--that may be an augmentation to the main spell. I'm betting they
were "one-way" portkeys that were then re-enchanted for the scheduling of
return trips. The Triwizard Cup, though, had clearly been set to work both
ways, going and returning, and the trigger was touch rather than time.

--Amanda




From mercia at ireland.com  Wed Apr 17 16:27:28 2002
From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:27:28 -0000
Subject: Some shipping comments
Message-ID: <a9k7pg+f4bd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37955

I am not usually interested in the 'shipping forecasts' (so to speak) 
that often exercise people but some of the recent discussions on 
Ron/Fleur/Harry got me thinking about what JKR might be doing with 
all this.

On the whole it seems to me to be written as just part of the 
territory of growing up. Harry has something of a major crush on Cho, 
Ginny on Harry and Ron a possibly milder crush on Fleur but I am not 
convinced that any of them will or are intended to lead anywhere. 
After all first crushes are not really based on any reality - you are 
usually fantasising wildly about someone you barely know - and people 
rarely end up with in permanent relationship with the first object of 
their adolescent desire. OK maybe some do seem to settle down younger 
in the WW but they are not that different. Cho is I feel particularly 
unlikely to return Harry's feelings. I'm sure she is a kind hearted 
girl who wanted to let him down gently but even if there had been no 
Cedric around 15 or 16 year old girls are usually more interested 
in 'older men'. Since girls do mature more quickly a teenage boy even 
just one year younger would not normally be considered. At that stage 
you want to be seen with the cool 'older guy' who seems to have more 
sophistication. At least that's how I remember it <g>. Think of 
Fleur's 'Zis leetle boy' comment which so stings Harry. I know it is 
not in relation to romance and Fleur is even further removed from 
Harry in age but I still think Cho's reaction to Harry's crush would 
be a bit on those lines.

Herminone finds the boys discovery of 'girls' a bit exasperating of 
course since her own ditsy phase was two years earlier as Ron 
obliquely pointed out when she claimed to be beyond being swayed by 
physical attractiveness. I haven't the book to hand but the phrase 
was something to the effect, 'Ron coughed something that sounded 
suspiciously like Lockhart', a line I just love! But I do think JKR 
is pointing us towards the possiblity of relationship between Ron and 
Hermione, almost precisely because they are both so blind to it for 
much of GoF while it is becoming increasingly clear to the reader 
that they are interested in each other. In other words this isn't a 
crush and indeed both may go through crushes and flirtations with 
other people before they seriously waken up to the nature of their 
feelings for each other. In one interview JKR did confirm this by 
saying that there was something going on between Ron and Hermione but 
Ron, typical boy, didn't know it yet. But I'm not sure Hermione even 
does. I wasn't sure at first that it was a pairing I could see 
working since Hermione seemed so much cleverer than Ron I thought 
they might drive one another mad but I was coming round to it in GoF. 
Now I am quite interested in seeing how Jo will develop this. If she 
ever gets on with it! (Sigh!)

As a BTW, Mike's signature started me wondering. At the risk of 
sounding indelicate, do we have any idea what the 'inappropriate 
charms' might be that Aberforth got done for for practising on that 
unfortunate goat? I assume of course they were something like making 
a goat fly and er.. er... um...  Any suggestions?

Mercia    




From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 17 16:32:39 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:32:39 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Get The Golden Egg" Plot Hole!
Message-ID: <F126jkOTGkdmcdn1YcE000011f0@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37956

I have always assumed that the spell that is used to enchant an object into 
being a portkey was very flexible and full of options. Thus, portkeys set up 
for the Quidditch World Cup were set to be activated on touch, at a 
particular time, and then shut down, to be reactivated only on command. The 
Triwizard Cup, on the other hand, was enchanted by Barty Jr. to travel at 
first touch to the graveyard, and then, on second touch, to travel back to 
Hogwarts, specifically to the grassy area in front of the maze (so that LV 
and crew could port back there, surprise everone, and cause great mayhem).

J


>From: Martin Hooper <ch001d4564 at blueyonder.co.uk>
>Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
>To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
>Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:23:48 +0100
>
>At 12:07 17/04/02, Anglinsbees wrote:
> >Ah- but he <did> summon it into his hand in the cemetary- in order
> >to portkey back with Cedrics body.  My problem with this scene is
> >that in this instnce, the portkey seems to work differently than the
> >way portkeys did previously.  If a portkey takes you back whre it
> >came from the second time you touch it, it would create all sorts of
> >handling problems at the World cup- and they handled the used
> >portkeys vary casually, tossing them in a box.
>
>Just a thought but maybe they did - meybe they were activated so that it
>sent you back on a time-delay spell...  After the World Cup it would have
>automatically turned itself back on set to the place it came from.
>
>Hope that makes sense... ;)
>
>
>Martin J Hooper
>http://www.martinjh.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
>AIM: Martinjh99 ICQ: 43933602
>
>   ----------
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.346 / Virus Database: 194 - Release Date: 10/04/02
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 17 15:51:16 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:51:16 -0000
Subject: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020417152216.00a27c40@pop3.blueyonder.co.uk>
Message-ID: <a9k5lk+ndad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37957

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Martin Hooper <ch001d4564 at b...> wrote:
> At 12:07 17/04/02, Anglinsbees wrote:
> >Ah- but he <did> summon it into his hand in the cemetary- in order
> >to portkey back with Cedrics body.  My problem with this scene is
> >that in this instnce, the portkey seems to work differently than
the
> >way portkeys did previously.  If a portkey takes you back whre it
> >came from the second time you touch it, it would create all sorts
of
> >handling problems at the World cup- and they handled the used
> >portkeys vary casually, tossing them in a box.
> 
> Just a thought but maybe they did - meybe they were activated so
that it 
> sent you back on a time-delay spell...  After the World Cup it would
have 
> automatically turned itself back on set to the place it came from.
> 
> Hope that makes sense... ;)

Maybe there one-way and two-way portkeys, depending on how you make
them.  Crouch Jr. made the Cup a two-way portkey because its purpose
wasn't just to get Harry to the graveyard, but also to get Voldemort
and the DEs into Hogwarts afterwards.  We know you can't Apparate into
Hogwarts, but perhaps you can use a two-way portkey to get out and
back in.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From Kimstr at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 18 20:30:48 2002
From: Kimstr at hotmail.com (archgarchus)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:30:48 -0000
Subject: SHIP: LOLLIPOPS fights on
In-Reply-To: <004e01c1e6e4$1b67bd40$fd52dccb@price>
Message-ID: <a9nado+98g0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37958

Dear Captain Tabouli,

   Hurrah!! Ecstatic, thrilled, and joyful to be welcolmed onboard 
LOLLIPOPS with such celebration. I shall pass around fizzing whizbees 
and chocolate frogs to the entire crew!! Much thanks and enthusiasm.
And..we musn't let our shipmates slip off the ship in lifeboats. We 
must sail all the waters of the HP ocean full steam ahead.

   Anyways, I have always suspected the Snape/Lily/James triangle 
from the first time I read PoA. Maybe I am too big a fan of Bronte, 
but all I could think about were parallels to WUTHERING HEIGHTS. 
Snape's irrational hatred of Harry HAD to come from someplace. 
Certainly such hatred would not be shown without a BIG reason (unless 
of course one is a sociopath like the Dark Lord). 

   I always have found it interesting that even though Lily was a 
close friend of the Mauraders gang, Snape never ever mentions her 
when he is baiting Harry. Her absense is conspicuous. And, it gives a 
wonderful reason for why Snape protects Harry. As much as he hates 
the fact that Harry is James's son, Harry is also Lily's son as well. 
Poor Snape. Imagine his dismay when, after a decade of 
secretly "marinating" (yes, a KISSING JESSICA STEIN reference) over 
the death of Lily, he is suddenly confronted with Harry (the son he 
never, but in his mind, should have had with Lily). That 
this "mockery" of his own imagined son looks like James adds insult 
to injury.

  JKR is brilliant in that despite all of Snape's disagreeableness 
and rancor, he is really the only true "father" figure in the series 
to Harry. I can hear the protests now...What about Dumbledore and 
Lupin and Black? Well, I would argue that Dumbledore is more of a 
grandfather figure. He helps Harry certainly, but he is by nature a 
more "distant" character...aloof and benevolent. Lupin and Black are 
the proverbial "uncles". Their concern for Harry, as thus far shown 
in the series, is powerful but isolated. Thus, it is Snape who 
actively and consistently protects Harry (Most evident in SS and 
GoF). And, never forget the look that Snape gives Harry at the end of 
GoF. 

   I believe that part of JKR's "conclusion" to the series in Book 7 
will be Harry's eventual understanding of Snape and Snape's behavior. 
Part of growing up is realizing that surface appearances are not all 
that they appear to be. 

   I personally cannot wait for the moment when JKR actually has 
someone clearly mention Lily in front of Snape. Not just a vague 
reference to Harry's parents, but when someone actually says the 
name "Lily Potter" in front of Snape. I shall be very curious as to 
the look JKR describes on Snape's face.

   And, I wish that somehow we could see Snape looking into the 
Mirror of Erised. I am sure we can all surmise who he would see...


   So, any theories as to if and when and how Snape/Lily will be 
revealed? 

 Again, thrilled to be onoard and look forward to many more messages.


                          Cheerio,

                          Archgarchus of the HMS LOLLIPOPS





From paul.richmond at motorola.com  Wed Apr 17 19:04:55 2002
From: paul.richmond at motorola.com (pfrich0)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:04:55 -0000
Subject: PlayStation? (Was: Sirius Black's math mistake?)
In-Reply-To: <a9g1cu+h9is@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9kh0n+tadf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37959

> I looked this up and apparently, Sony released PlayStation in the
> U.S and UK only in 1995, and I'm guessing that this scene is in
> 1994?

The Harry Potter Lexicon addressed this one in the entry on Dudley, 
along with the speculation that his parents might have actually 
imported a Playstation from Japan, before the release of the 
British/American one.

While it would seem in character for the Dursleys to do this 
(nothing's too good for Duddie-kins), I doubt there were very many 
games available in English at the time..

Paul




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Apr 19 13:44:51 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:44:51 EDT
Subject: Only Children/ Likeable Slytherins?
Message-ID: <183.70d87ab.29f17953@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37960


Jamie:
> Why do so many wizarding families seem to have only one child?  Granted, JKR
> may just not have gotten around to mentioning siblings, but it seems
> disproportionate.  We do know that there aren't very many pairs (or larger
> groupings) of siblings at Hogwarts.  It looks like James Potter and Sirius
> Black are only children, as well.  If this trend continues, the entire
> British Wizarding World will have descended from Weasleys, who as far as I
> can tell are the only family in canon to have more than two children.
> (Correct me if I'm wrong.)


This interesting point has been raised before (your last sentence made me 
smile: my dentist always refers to my four children invading his surgery as 
'the future of England')

It has been speculated that the apparent low birth rate is due to the 
uncertainty of life during Voldemort's ascendency, which of course might mean 
that there are now a lot of younger siblings who haven't yet made it to 
Hogwarts. It doesn't seem to have affected the Weasleys though, as you point 
out (another point for Arthur with Imperius, anyone? Although the Voldemort 
supporters we know of don't seem to have been procreating much either.)

Perhaps it has to do with wizard life-spans. That biological clock isn't 
ticking away so urgently and, not aging in the same way, parents have more 
energy to contemplate having children at an older age, thus spacing them out 
more.
Still doesn't explain the Weasleys. Perhaps they're just madly in love and 
not very good at remembering the er...practicalities. Accidents do happen. 
Frequently, to some folks!
......................................................

Megs brings up another interesting point:

>Ok it's not as prevalent in this thread as others, but many here
>seem to think that slytherins have always been hated, but I have never
>seen it that way. I always thought the hatred of Slytherins was fairly
>recent as a form of backlash after Voldemort. Just because a majority of
>Slytherins were the wrongdoers in the Vold War I doesn't mean others
>have gone astray in the past. Also the slytherins are portrayed even
>worse due to Harry's POV.

>So anyways to sum up, maybe the Slytherins weren't hated when the
>Marauders were in school. Maybe that is a fairly recent development.

Mm. I wonder. We are certainly given a very biased view of Slytherin, seen 
almost totally from Harry's POV. Why don't we like them? There may be some 
more objective reasons. I'll just list what I can think of, objective or not 
and in no particular order.

1. Our encounter with Draco in Madam Malkins.
2.  Hagrid, who then tells Harry that there's not a wizard gone bad who 
wasn't from                            Slytherin.
3. The snake association, snakes traditionally being identified with evil. 
(Associated with this is the very name of its founder, with its implication 
of the way a snake moves.)
4. Voldemort was a Slytherin.
5. Snape.
6. The constant animosity between Draco and his supporters and the trio.
7. The impression that we are given that Slytherin is set apart from the 
other Houses.
8. The behaviour of the Slytherin Quidditch team.
9. The Monster of Slytherin and the implication (or is it fact?) that 
Slytherin himself was prejudiced against Muggle borns.
10. The same prejudice displayed by the Malfoys
11. The Slytherins inhabit the dungeons.
12. The Bloody Baron

One or two of these features obviously predate Voldemort.

The Sorting Hat itself doesn't give much away, only telling us of their 
ambition, although the first Sorting Hat song does make the chilling 
assertion that they will use any means to achieve their ends.

Against the idea that the Slytherins have always been hated is the *popular* 
Tom Riddle being appointed Head Boy, although maybe he was an exception. If 
they weren't unpopular, it would lend credence to LOLLIPOPS and other 
variations.

Megs may be correct that the image of Slytherin has taken a downturn since 
the last war. OTOH, the fact that ambition seems to be their overriding 
characteristic (makes you feel kind of sorry for the Crabbes and Goyles, 
doesn't it?) means that they are particularly likely to fall victim to 
corruption and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find them similarly linked 
with previous episodes of unrest in the WW. The trouble is, we have virtually 
no wizard history to go by. If the Slytherins have only become unpopular 
since Voldmort, then they seem to be living up to their reputation.
It's the one dimensional DE thing, again. We have grey characters from the 
other houses, but (*pace*, Draco fans) very little to suggest anything grey 
about the Slytherins. Granted, we see the students from Hary's POV, but I 
find it difficult to see any redeeming features. This is one of the reasons 
why Snape stands out. 

The question of the Dark Arts is another issue. We have never really managed 
to define these properly. The DADA classes we hear about mostly cover defence 
against other magical beings. Yet there is a whole street (Nockturn Alley) 
which seems to be devoted to supplying the needs of practitioners (legally?) 
and we know Lucius Malfoy has his hidden supplies of illegal goods. So 
*someone* practices the Dark Arts, whatever they are. Who?  According to 
McGonagall, Dumbledore could, but wouldn't. Slytherin seems to be the only 
one of the founders, on our present, extremely thin knowledge, who would be 
likely to foster interest in the Dark Arts.

So, although there is very little to go on, I am inclined to think that 
Slytherin has always been associated with the Dark Arts and corruption. It 
doesn't follow that all Slytherins are bad *per se*, but I think it would 
lead to their being regarded with suspicion by members of the other houses.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lrcjestes at earthlink.net  Fri Apr 19 13:48:53 2002
From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:48:53 -0000
Subject: Snape? A father figure?  Ewwwwww
In-Reply-To: <a9nado+98g0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9p785+iu6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37961

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "archgarchus" <Kimstr at h...> wrote:
> Dear Captain Tabouli,
> 

>   JKR is brilliant in that despite all of Snape's disagreeableness 
> and rancor, he is really the only true "father" figure in the 
series 
> to Harry. 

Okay I only occasionally drop in on this list (I'm an old timer who 
generally only shows up to defend Sirius) and I'm definitely NOT a 
Snape-lover nor do I hold with the Snape-James-Lily 
triangle...generally makes me want to gag.  That all said up front 
you might not want to read any further....

But might I respectfully say, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?  SNAPE A 
FATHER FIGURE, to HARRY?????

With a father figure like that who the heck needs the Durseleys? 


>I can hear the protests now...What about Dumbledore and 
> Lupin and Black? Well, I would argue that Dumbledore is more of a 
> grandfather figure. He helps Harry certainly, but he is by nature a 
> more "distant" character...aloof and benevolent. Lupin and Black 
are 
> the proverbial "uncles". Their concern for Harry, as thus far shown 
> in the series, is powerful but isolated. Thus, it is Snape who 
> actively and consistently protects Harry (Most evident in SS and 
> GoF). And, never forget the look that Snape gives Harry at the end 
of 
> GoF. 

Sure he protects Harry in SS because of some twisted sense of 
obligations to satisfy a life debt.  But come on....Snape has 
ridiculed, taunted, and just been wholly unpleasant to Harry and his 
friends, how can you possible suggest that he's been "a true father 
figure"  He's not showing Harry how to love or be loved. Most of the 
time he appears to be a seething mass of resentment towards Harry. He 
isn't offering any guidance through the perils of the wizarding 
world.  He hasn't offered Harry anything overtly except malice and 
sarcasm.  What kind of example is JKR setting up if she intends Snape 
to be a father figure to Harry?  Seems to me he's trying to get Harry 
expelled at first possible convenience.

Yes Sirius is only able to appear occasionally, but look at the 
interaction between them.  Harry trusts him to ask advice, goes to 
him for support guidance.  Sirius Listens to Harry without malice 
without ridicule and abuse.  I'm sorry but for a rle model Sirius is 
a bit more Fatherly than anything I've seen out of Snape.

I'd agree that Dumbledore is distant, retaining the role as 
benevolent headmaster, and Lupin the role of uncle...but Harry is 
definitely beginning to see Sirius as a father figure.  Sirius 
definitely undertook that role in GoF.  How you ever came to a 
conclusion that Snape was being portrayed in that role I will never 
know.

BTW...none of the above rant is meant to be any kind of personal 
attack, just a vehement stating of my opinion...no malice 
intended...not even the part about losing your mind.

A Sirius Defender

Carole





From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Apr 19 13:50:54 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:50:54 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: LOLLIPOPS fights on
Message-ID: <1a3.f18e55.29f17abe@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37962

> 
>    I personally cannot wait for the moment when JKR actually has 
> someone clearly mention Lily in front of Snape. Not just a vague 
> reference to Harry's parents, but when someone actually says the 
> name "Lily Potter" in front of Snape. I shall be very curious as to 
> the look JKR describes on Snape's face.
> 

Yes, so shall I. Will it be the glittering eyes, or the odd, twisted smile 
playing around the lips?

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that one

Eloise
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Fri Apr 19 14:36:56 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:36:56 -0000
Subject: Could Snape have (or has had) a mental/personalitiy disorder?
In-Reply-To: <a9kjri+m28l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9pa28+i76h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37963

Steph wrote:

"I came across a condition called 'Schizoid Personality Disorder' 
(nothing to do with schizophrenia). Noting down a few of the key 
symptoms my strange mind began thinking. Is it possible that 
Snape may suffer or may have suffered from any sort of mental 
or personality disorder?"

 The Axis II coditions (personality disorders) are very hard to 
diagnose even with a very thorough interview.  Most people have 
some variations of these disorders (or combinations of these) 
and are perfectly "normal".  You can find anyone on a bad day 
and say that they fit a perfect Borderline profile, or meet 
someone the day after he has won a marathon and insist that he 
needs help for his obvious Narcissistic personality disorder.  
But, there are very specific criterea for making an Axis II 
diagnosis, and unfortunately, we haven't really seen enough of 
Snape to make that determination.  We know absolutely nothing 
about his personal relationships, or his family history.  We've 
seen Snape only through Harry's eyes.  

Good luck with the psych studies in college.  It is a fun and 
rewarding career, but be warned, you'll die poor :-)

Rita




From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 17 16:21:14 2002
From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Draco/Slytherin/Dumbledore/Ron&Hermione 
Message-ID: <20020417162114.30908.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37964


Manda Wrote: The first thing to remember about Draco is that we see him entirely 
through Harry's limited POV, perhaps more so than most of the
other characters.  We have a couple scenes where Draco isn't 
aware of Harry, but both are brief and occur when Draco's only 
twelve.  I am of the opinion that Draco has to have a large amount 
of depth that we haven't seen.  People are complicated, even if
they aren't good.  Since JKR apparently has constructed
backstories and personalities for even her minor characters, I 
think there has to be more to Draco than the little bit that he 
shows Harry, and that we thus see.  I would rather hope that 
people don't judge me by the perceptions of my worst enemies.  

That said, it remains to be seen whether Draco's unseen sides 
reveal him to be a really sweet, caring guy, who's just afraid 
to let the Gryffindors realize it, or whether his only concern in 
life is that so far, he hasn't gotten a chance to get out there 
and start ridding the world of Mudbloods himself.  I'd like to
see more depth to Draco's character, but I'm not real sure how
we'll see it, given the perspective.    

I respond:  Yeah I agree with that, I mean he is a little kid.  The sterotypical bully at this point in the game.  I mean I think it's part of his character.  But I do see some possibility of redemption there, kids grow up.  I also think a lot of what Draco says about Harry is a defense mechanism of sorts, he needs to feel the power and unfortunately I think at this young age he hasn't found another means to channel it.



     Manda also wrote: That makes sense, but I don't think that making us like a 
character on some level necessarily implies that the character will 
be good.  After all, we were made to feel an awful lot of sympathy 
for Crouch, Jr, in the Pensieve scene as well as the conversation 
with Sirius.  In many ways, it would fit with the increasing moral 
complexity to see a character who is sympathetic or rather likeable, 
but who is ultimately on the side of evil.  Sort of the opposite of 
the picture we're given of Snape, so far.  I don't think we
have that with Draco yet, though.  He's still pretty flat and 
unlikable at this point, IMO

Hmmm well I mean to me the difference between the Malfoy and Lucius scene was bassically that it really wasn't all that neccessary at that point from what we could see.  There wasn't any deep plot meaning given away at that point.  Maybe it will be important later, but I'm not sure.  As far as the Crouch thing yeah I felt like I understood how hard it must have been for him...I don't know if I felt sympathy for his character.  JKR is VERY good helping us to understand why something happens.  I mean Tom Riddle hate muggles cuz of his father, Peter Pettigrew just wanted to feel important and really fit in (although, I don't care what anyone says Peter is a very talented wizard, if he wasn't he would never have been able to become anigmus to begin with).  I mean it's not so much sympathy of the characterss but understanding of what might have pushed them to their breaking point.  With Draco I supposse one could argue that this is what it is..but I really see Draco as just a puppet for Lucius in many ways.  Like I really do think that he has the intrinsic thing that is saying what can I do make Dad proud?  And the whole hate Harry Potter, mugbloods, Weasley's that just goes along with that.  I also think it's fair to say that Draco is a show off..and I mean right now he is going to work with the people that are in his house he wants to play to them, if that would ever where off we may see a new side to Draco.  I just am not ready to write him off yet.  I think it is a very valid point that he could turn good, I just don't see it working without that.  And the other reason I see this happening is okay JKR isn't a bad writer, she is not going to make all the slytherins evil and all the Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, and Hufflepuffs good.  I just think that would be way too easy.

 

Anyways, a lot has been said about getting rid of the house of Slytherin, and I think that is ridiculous.  I am sure that there are many Slytherins that are not evil, it just appears that they all are when were looking at it from Harry's prospective.  Besides, I've said it before ambition is a wonderful virtue to have if you channel it correctly.  And besides...I would love to know which of the "old crowd" is a Slytherin.  I personally think it is possible that Dumbledore (who is such a mysterious character really) could have been a Slytherin.  I have really know cannon evidence to back this up with except that it's just a rumor that he is Gryffindor, we don't know this for sure.  Perhaps, that is why Lily and James were afraid to give Dumbledore the job of Secret Keeper?  Perhaps, in the back of their mind their is a possibility that he may not be entirely good.  I mean that is a bit of a stretch but we don't know really. I also wonder about Dumbledore a bit, I never could grow to trust him.  I mean I don't know I just am uneasy about him.  Part of me thinks it's cuz he's almost too good.  I mean we haven't really seen any faults in him like we have in the other characters which makes me a bit worried, I mean he is way too good to be true. It's definitely JKR's writing style to surprise us with the person being the most evil the one that we least expect, or the one that we are the most fearful of to be the least evil (in Sirius's case). 

Okay, I've stayed out of the ship debates mainly because I love the idea of Harry/Hermione and I think that while the Ron/Hermione theory is plausible..I don't think it will lead for a lasting relationship I think JKR wants us to think it will .  I really don't think that Hermione likes Ron, I mean the conversation that is most often cited to say that Hermione likes him is the one on the stars outside the common room after Hermione went to the Yule ball with Krum (which I saw coming way before then).  I think she was just being a normal 14 year old girl who was very hurt by the fact that her neither of her two guy friends even thought to invite her to the Yule Ball, until last resort. I think yeah Ron likes Hermione this is obvious, I mean he initiated the fight.  But I still think we would have seen the same reaction from Hermione if it had been Harry who initiated the argument.  I may be wrong but I mean there is really no evidence to say that this isn't plausible.  Also, I agree Draco was making a statement of the obvious about Ron and Hermione, they are going to be targeted first they may die in the process.  I mean that is just common sense that Voldemort is going to start at the weakest but closest link that he has to Harry.  In which case, Ron would be the first to go most likely. Although, I am not sure if this really works becuase I'm fairly certain if Ron does die...it won't be until the very end.  I mean Ron's lack of presence would be leave a huge hole in the book in my oppinion.  Like I hated the parts in GOF when Ron and Harry weren't talking to eachother it was just not all that interesting and because you wanted to see them friends again.  But I think Ron is a character to watch, not only do I see him toying with the dark side but I just see a lot of hard feelings start to develop towards Harry in general I think GOF was just the start of the underlying inadequacey that Ron feels.  But ultimately we know that Ron is a good character and will be redeemed.  

 

Yeah that was a long post, if you actually read it wow thanks.  I hope you have a great day!

Melanie



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Apr 17 18:27:20 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:27:20 -0000
Subject: Draco and redemption potential (long)
In-Reply-To: <a9k48e+hr0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9keq8+5lin@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37965

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:

> Would it have been different if he actually saw Cedric's dead body, 
or
> heard Voldemort coldly saying "Kill the spare?"  I don't know.

The way they were in control of things (ie. not at all) at the end of 
GoF, I wouldn't have been surprised if Draco had seen the body. No, I 
think JKR meant to symbolize that Draco has gone off the deep end. 

Now, whether he can come back is another question. But I think he's 
already crossed the crucial line.

Eileen




From dorbandb at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 19 13:59:01 2002
From: dorbandb at yahoo.com (dorbandb)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:59:01 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, Flamel, and Fawkes
In-Reply-To: <F36sJ9amqkhqntKrUV000000516@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9p7r5+93t6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37966

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Liz Sager" <ChaserChick at h...> wrote:
> 
> I assumed that Flamel died shortly after the goings-on in P/SS.

Yes, I believe that is what we are all supposed to assume.

>Just the way Dumbledore worded it when Harry asked him, "He has 
>enough elixir to set his affairs in order." (That's not a direct 
>quote, but its definitely close.) It just made me think that he was 
>going to settle things of estate and whatnot and then die peacefully.

Yes, it made me think the same thing intially too.  No muss, no fuss, 
Nicholas Flamel, *only* known immortal in the whole world - muggle or 
wizard - is just going to relenquish his immortality?!?  Because 
Dumbledore had a talk with him...?!   Right then.  I have a difficult 
time believing that scene as presented.  I think there's more left 
unsaid than said.  665 years of "affairs" to set in order would be a 
lengthy task in itself, not likely accomplished overnight.  


>I never really gave him being a wizard or not a wizard much thought, 
>truthfully.  

> Liz

But what was your assumption as you read the story - wizard or muggle? 
I assumed wizard.  I now believe muggle.  Does it matter?  I don't 
know, but I think it should, somehow.

Brian

 





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Apr 19 14:07:29 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:07:29 -0000
Subject: Only Children/ Likeable Slytherins?
In-Reply-To: <183.70d87ab.29f17953@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9p8b1+9o55@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37967

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:

> So, although there is very little to go on, I am inclined to think
that 
> Slytherin has always been associated with the Dark Arts and
corruption. It 
> doesn't follow that all Slytherins are bad *per se*, but I think it
would 
> lead to their being regarded with suspicion by members of the other
houses.
> 

It occurs to me that once Slytherin House acquired its reputation for
corruption (whenever this might've happened), it would quickly have
become self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating.  We know from Harry's
Sorting that the Sorting Hat won't put you in a House you really,
really don't want to be in.  If everyone believes that getting into
Slytherin is the first irrevocable step to becoming a dark wizard,
then I'm sure there are lots and lots of ambitious yet decent kids who
put on that Hat thinking, "Not Slytherin, please not Slytherin."  Thus
all or most of the potentially good Slytherins take themselves out of
the running.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Fri Apr 19 15:24:31 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:24:31 EDT
Subject: (no subject)
Message-ID: <5a.a2c7228.29f190af@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37968

Eileen writes:

<The way they were in control of things (ie. not at all) at the end of 
<GoF, I wouldn't have been surprised if Draco had seen the body. No, I 
<think JKR meant to symbolize that Draco has gone off the deep end. 

<Now, whether he can come back is another question. But I think he's 
<already crossed the crucial line.

    I know that there has been a LOT of speculation lately as to whether 
Draco has the potential for redemption. I, personally, am a Draco fan, so I 
believe that he does indeed have that potential. Eileen, (and I mean this in 
a nice way) I believe that you are wrong in the idea that Draco has "crossed 
the crucial line" into the 'deep end'. Just thikn about this: Draco has been 
raised to support Voldy, to hate Muggleborns, and to generally believe he is 
above everyone else. While this attitude sucks, it's what has been ingrained 
in his head since he was young. (ex. snooty 11 year old Draco in Madam 
Malkins shop.) 
    Also, Lucius does NOT seem the type to say "well Draco, I know I was 
raised wrong, but I'm going to try and fix life for you". Lucius really IS a 
horrible person, and those beliefs ARE his own. However, Draco is mearly 
trying to live up to his fathers standards. If i were Draco, I wouldn't want 
to go against Lucius.
    Another point concerning Draco's ability to reform is that when he first 
met Harry, and then met him again on the train, he was (in his own way) nice 
to him. Sure at the robe shop he was being a bit of a snob (okay, a snob), 
but he talked to Harry right away. Also, on the train on their first day 
going to Hogwarts, Draco again tries to ofer his hand in friendship. If Draco 
was REALLY only on the dark side, he would have never offered to be friends 
with Harry! After he learns it's Harry, he doesn't ignore him on the 
pretenses that Harry was Voldy's downfall, and Dear old Dad is basically 
Voldy's lap dog. Instead, he just wants a friend.
    (I know this is long, but this is the last of it.) I also know that what 
Draco said about Cedric at the end of GoF was a really, really horrible thing 
to say. But, in Draco's defence, I'm more than certain that those were not 
his words - they were Lucius'. And, sometimes people just say really stupid 
things.

*Chelsea*



From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Fri Apr 19 14:25:06 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:25:06 -0000
Subject: Snape? A father figure? No, but still not bad.
In-Reply-To: <a9p785+iu6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9p9c2+v2tk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37969

Carole wrote:

"... how can you possible suggest that he's been "a true father 
figure" He's not showing Harry how to love or be loved."  

and I agree.  I don't think that Snape is a "father figure" for Harry 
at all.  But, I have to go on to disagree with other stuff you wrote.

"Sure he protects Harry in SS because of some twisted sense of 
obligations to satisfy a life debt."

Nah, I think he protects Harry because it is the right thing to do.  
Like Harry or not, he knows he has to protect him.  I believe that 
Snape would do the same for any student at Hogwarts.  

"But come on....Snape has ridiculed, taunted, and just been 
wholly unpleasant to Harry and his friends..."

Yup, that's right.  And how else is he supposed to behave, given 
his position?  Was he supposed to crack into a huge welcoming 
smile at the sight of Harry the first day of potions?  Maybe run 
over and give him a great big thump on the back and say "Well, 
here he IS!  Hey, kiddo, I've been living a double life for the past 
decade or so, spying on the Dark Lord, risking life and limb for 
the good side and you can count on me to always be there to 
save your neck when you need it, but, hey, don't blow my cover, 
OK?" *wink*wink*.  I'm not saying he does like Harry, or even 
doesn't loathe him, I'm just suggesting it is impossible for us to 
say either way by the behavior we've seen so far.  

"He isn't offering any guidance through the perils of the wizarding 
world. He hasn't offered Harry anything overtly except malice and 
sarcasm." 

I disagree.  He seems to be a very good potions teacher.  Those 
kids seem to KNOW their potions when they leave.  But, more 
importantly, I think that HRH are learning something more 
vaulable--that not everyone who doesn't like them is bad.  I think 
this is especially important for Harry, who I think can get caught 
up in the rush of his popularity and be tempted to think that 
anyone who isn't his friend is an enemy.  So, not fatherly, to be 
sure, but still valuable.

Rita






From heidit at netbox.com  Fri Apr 19 15:27:21 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:27:21 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco and redemption potential (long)
Message-ID: <55.25ef8956.29f19159@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37970

In a message dated 4/19/2002 11:03:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
lucky_kari at yahoo.ca writes: 
> 
> Now, whether he can come back is another question. But I think he's 
> already crossed the crucial line.

What crucial line is that? The Line of Saying Obnoxious Things? The Line of 
Being Cruel?  Or the Line of Coping With Things One Cannot Really Comprehend 
by Joking About Them, which a lot of teens then would've crossed after 9/11. 

ANd I also don't really think that it's a significant degree of cruelty for 
him to have been set against Hagrid after Buckbeak struck him in 3rd year. It 
says pretty clearly in FB&WTFT that they are dangerous creatures, and yes he 
should've paid attention and not insulted Buckbeak, but on the same line, 
Hagrid should not have brought the hippogryffs to class. They. Were. 
Dangerous. And you can't really blame him for thinking that Hagrid should be 
sacked for doing something that was dangerous to the students - but then 
again, I think Hagrid's done a lot of things which aren't exactly sensible 
from a teaching perspective. Of course, I feel the same way about Madam Hooch 
and the first flying lesson too...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Fri Apr 19 15:58:12 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:58:12 -0000
Subject: Snape the father (was SHIP: LOLLIPOPS fights on)
In-Reply-To: <a9nado+98g0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9peqk+o434@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37971

Archgarchus de LOLLIPOPS wrote:

>   JKR is brilliant in that despite all of Snape's disagreeableness 
> and rancor, he is really the only true "father" figure in the 
series 
> to Harry. I can hear the protests now...What about Dumbledore and 
> Lupin and Black? Well, I would argue that Dumbledore is more of a 
> grandfather figure. He helps Harry certainly, but he is by nature a 
> more "distant" character...aloof and benevolent. Lupin and Black 
are 
> the proverbial "uncles". Their concern for Harry, as thus far shown 
> in the series, is powerful but isolated. Thus, it is Snape who 
> actively and consistently protects Harry (Most evident in SS and 
> GoF). And, never forget the look that Snape gives Harry at the end 
of 
> GoF. 

This is a new slant on Snape: Harry the son-he-never-had.  I do agree 
(despite Carole) that Sirius is only partially functioning in father 
role.  If it wasn't for the fact that Snape is horrible to Neville 
and Hermione, I would say that his behaviour to Harry *is* a bit like 
that of some teachers when they end up teaching their own offspring - 
bending over backwards to be seen not to favour them.  That Hermione, 
Neville and Harry are all secretly siblings in some Snapeverse does 
take a bit of getting used to, though: beyond acronyms, I'd say.

I think I'm ultimately with Pippin, who posted a couple of months 
back (Message 35033) that:

>>IMO, it is dramatically neccessary that more than circumstance 
keeps Sirius from being a satisfactory replacement for the father 
Harry has lost, for Harry himself has to step into those shoes. 
Indeed, it is this, and not going to live with Sirius, that produces 
Harry's patronus in PoA.<<

Certainly, in the priori incantatem scene, it is James he is thinking 
of, though we don't exactly know why.

David




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Apr 17 17:50:48 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:50:48 -0000
Subject: BIG PROBLEM WITH FOURTH MAN! HELP!
Message-ID: <a9kclo+8ota@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37972

I was about to explain fourth man to my brother, when he knocked a 
whole in it that left me flabbergasted.

He said the fourth man is obviously the third Death Eater, dead in 
Voldemort's service. And the more I thought about this the more 
horrifically it made sense. All the Voldemort-adressed gaps in the 
circle should artistically refer to DEs throughout the novel. The 
first two dead in V's service are obviously Rosier and Wilkes, but the 
third? And, why doesn't he mention the fourth man... well, because the 
fourth man is the third man, since dead at Azkaban, dead in V's 
service.

Does this mean we have to release Avery? Oh, I hope not.

Eileen, clutching at Avery, "HE'S MINE, I TELL YOU! PETTIGREW AND 
MALFOY CAN'T HAVE HIM!"




From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Fri Apr 19 15:06:43 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:06:43 EDT
Subject: (no subject)
Message-ID: <48.a2bba2b.29f18c83@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37973

Archgarchus wrtes:


<   I always have found it interesting that even though Lily was a 
<close friend of the Mauraders gang, Snape never ever mentions her 
<when he is baiting Harry. Her absense is conspicuous. And, it gives a 
<wonderful reason for why Snape protects Harry. As much as he hates 
<the fact that Harry is James's son, Harry is also Lily's son as well. 
<Poor Snape. Imagine his dismay when, after a decade of 
<secretly "marinating" (yes, a KISSING JESSICA STEIN reference) over 
<the death of Lily, he is suddenly confronted with Harry (the son he 
<never, but in his mind, should have had with Lily). That 
<this "mockery" of his own imagined son looks like James adds insult 
<to injury.

Although I have never really explored the SHIPS alot, I do have to say that 
this idea about the Lily/Snape/James  triangle is very interesting. 
Archgarchus, I particularly like the above paragraph that you wrote. I 
finally realized what all you, ahem, "lollipoppers" out there are saying. It 
does provide an explanation to why Snape hates Harry so much (hello, he's 
almost a mirror image to James) yet has a sort of grudging respect that 
although is not shown often, is deffinately there. Like all of you on the 
good ship Lollipop, I'm very interested to see what happens when someone does 
mention 'Lily Potter' in front of Snape

*Chelsea*



From lrcjestes at earthlink.net  Fri Apr 19 18:02:16 2002
From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:02:16 -0000
Subject: Snape? A father figure? No, but still not bad.
In-Reply-To: <a9p9c2+v2tk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9pm38+6289@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37974

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ritadear2" <ritadarling at i...> wrote:
> Carole wrote:
> 
> "... how can you possible suggest that he's been "a true father 
> figure" He's not showing Harry how to love or be loved."  
> 


And Rita wrote:
> and I agree.  I don't think that Snape is a "father figure" for 
Harry 
> at all.  But, I have to go on to disagree with other stuff you 
wrote.
> 

> "But come on....Snape has ridiculed, taunted, and just been 
> wholly unpleasant to Harry and his friends..."
> 
> Yup, that's right.  And how else is he supposed to behave, given 
> his position?  Was he supposed to crack into a huge welcoming 
> smile at the sight of Harry the first day of potions?  Maybe run 
> over and give him a great big thump on the back and say "Well, 
> here he IS!  Hey, kiddo, I've been living a double life for the 
past 
> decade or so, spying on the Dark Lord, risking life and limb for 
> the good side and you can count on me to always be there to 
> save your neck when you need it, but, hey, don't blow my cover, 
> OK?" *wink*wink*.  I'm not saying he does like Harry, or even 
> doesn't loathe him, I'm just suggesting it is impossible for us to 
> say either way by the behavior we've seen so far.  

And I agree with that, and that is not what my point was.  I was 
illustrating why seeing Snape as a father figure to Harry was simply 
incomprehensible to me.  Yes, Snape has reasons to act nasty to Harry 
(possibly to keep up the "bad guy" charade as you have 
suggested)...and there is no reason for him to exhibit the chummy 
behavior you suggested above...and there are certainly things the 
trio can learn from Snape...but fatherly behavior is NOT one of them.


> 
> "He isn't offering any guidance through the perils of the wizarding 
> world. He hasn't offered Harry anything overtly except malice and 
> sarcasm." 
> 

> I disagree.  He seems to be a very good potions teacher.  Those 
> kids seem to KNOW their potions when they leave. 

Again...I was refering to things one generally sees in a father 
figure.  I never said they weren't learning from Snape, but what I 
meant by "offered anything overtly" was meant in terms of support or 
other familial qualities.  And I'm not saying he be should expected 
to either.


> But, more 
> importantly, I think that HRH are learning something more 
> vaulable--that not everyone who doesn't like them is bad.  I think 
> this is especially important for Harry, who I think can get caught 
> up in the rush of his popularity and be tempted to think that 
> anyone who isn't his friend is an enemy.  So, not fatherly, to be 
> sure, but still valuable.


Yes I will concede that Harry has learned valuable things from Snape, 
but how to treat a son is certainly NOT one of them. And I realize 
you agree with that, but the point of my post was to illustrate where 
Snape is NOT fatherly...not to necessarily illustrate that he was not 
important or valuable.

Carole




From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 19 18:43:38 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:43:38 -0000
Subject: Draco and redemption potential (long)
In-Reply-To: <55.25ef8956.29f19159@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9pogq+6i7i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37975

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote:
> ANd I also don't really think that it's a significant degree of 
cruelty for 
> him to have been set against Hagrid after Buckbeak struck him in 
3rd year. It 
> says pretty clearly in FB&WTFT that they are dangerous creatures, 
and yes he 
> should've paid attention and not insulted Buckbeak, but on the same 
line, 
> Hagrid should not have brought the hippogryffs to class. They. 
Were. 
> Dangerous. 

I can't imagine that anyone would think that magical creatures are 
benign. In fact, quite a lot of the topics that students at Hogwart's 
are studying ARE dangerous, like Potions. One wrong move and who 
knows what could happen. In "Fantastik Beasts and Where to Find 
Them", very, very few of the beasts are benign. 

Hagrid made it VERY clear how these animals were to be treated. I 
don't buy for a second that any of this is Hagrid's fault. 

I believe we see over and over again that the young wizards at 
Hogwarts are required to really apply themselves and their brains for 
the work that they're doing. It's a rigorous education in a very 
complicated field and if they don't pay attention, all kinds of havoc 
will likely ensue.

Suzanne (who must admit that she was a bit like Hermione in school 
and was therefore not too surprised to find out the she has the same 
birthday as Hermione, September 19)




From brooksar at indy.net  Wed Apr 17 20:15:01 2002
From: brooksar at indy.net (Brooks Rowlett)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:15:01 -0500
Subject: Harry's new pet
References: <1019041091.513214.35060.m6@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CBDD7C5.1060608@indy.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37977

>  Fantastic Beasts 
> states that they "Nest on Mountaintops" This doesn't necessarily 
> mean they are nesting to breed, but may indicate that possibility.


The traditional Phoenix makes its nest *only* for its pyre, and uses cinnamon 
twigs in the construction.

Having multiple Phoenices?  Phoeni? in the Potterverse probably means that the 
nesting really is for dwelling and/or breeding.  Fawkes regenerated simply on 
his perch, with no sign of a nest.

-Brooks A Rowlett








From brooksar at indy.net  Fri Apr 19 13:02:48 2002
From: brooksar at indy.net (Brooks Rowlett)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:02:48 -0500
Subject: Pettigrew & Sorting Hat & Only Children
References: <1019194002.2594.72117.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CC01578.7030801@indy.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37978

> The Sorting Hat seems to have a bias when it comes to families.


>The tendency of the Sorting Hat to sort by family is also apparent with all
the Slytherin families.


Ehmmm...urmmmm... Occam's Razor here?  I think the cart if before the horse in 
saying the Sorting Hat has a family bias.   Wouldn't it be as or even more 
likely for  the way a child is raised, to influence his/her attitudes in a way 
the Sorting Hat reads?

"The problem with figuring out which has more influence on the way a child 
develops, heredity or environment, is that your parents provide both".

-Brooks A Rowlett










From melodylemming at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 19 15:30:04 2002
From: melodylemming at hotmail.com (Melody B.)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:30:04 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore wand/animagus
Message-ID: <F42cO8TUvkXqnIs56Xv00004389@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37979

Domigu wrote:
>Any thoughts about kind of wand characateristics Dumbledore's wand
>may have (pheonix feather?)and being that he is a transfiguration
>master what, if any, his animagus form is (not a bumblebee).

I have a hard time with the idea that Dumbledore is an Animagus. Just 
because he's a really powerful wizard who's an expert at Transfiguration, 
doesn't mean he has to be an Am=nimagus.

Remember when Hermione says that she looked up Professor McGonagall on the 
list of registered Animagi? If Dumbledore was on the list, wouldn't she 
mention it?

Melody

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Fri Apr 19 21:28:15 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:28:15 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore wand/animagus
In-Reply-To: <F42cO8TUvkXqnIs56Xv00004389@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9q25f+112vf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37980

Melody wrote:
> I have a hard time with the idea that Dumbledore is an Animagus. Just 
> because he's a really powerful wizard who's an expert at Transfiguration, 
> doesn't mean he has to be an Am=nimagus.
> 
> Remember when Hermione says that she looked up Professor McGonagall on the 
> list of registered Animagi? If Dumbledore was on the list, wouldn't she 
> mention it?
> 
> Melody

I have a hard time figuring Dumbledore as an animagus too (mainly 
because I expect some sort of solid Canon evidence before accepting any 
notion).

However, IIRC, when Hermione looks up the animagi list she mention 
specificly that "in the last 100 years" there have only been 7(?) 
registered animagi. Dumbledore, for all we know, could have registered 
much before that: he IS 150 years old, remeber.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Apr 19 19:25:33 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:25:33 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore wand/animagus
In-Reply-To: <F42cO8TUvkXqnIs56Xv00004389@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9pqvd+64t2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37981

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Melody B." <melodylemming at h...> wrote:

> Remember when Hermione says that she looked up Professor McGonagall
on the 
> list of registered Animagi? If Dumbledore was on the list, wouldn't
she 
> mention it?

Hermione only looked up the list of registered Animagi for this
century.  Since Dumbledore is 150 years old, he might've been on the
list for the previous century.

I'm not saying he is an animagus, mind you -- I have no opinion on the
matter -- but the fact that Hermione didn't see him on the list
doesn't constitute evidence that he isn't.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From kellybroughton at netscape.net  Fri Apr 19 21:48:20 2002
From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:48:20 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's redemption/ Accio  
Message-ID: <4D6E2858.5F0DA762.B13B89B9@netscape.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37982

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Jo herself stated in a chat that Draco will NOT be redeemed. It made me sad to read that, because I would love for Draco to "see the light" and rebel against his father.

But then again... Jo can change her mind at any time....

Pertaining to the Accio/summoning charm: I, too, am of the mind that the golden egg had something on it to prevent it from being summoned. That was an excellent question... although it didn't occur to me as far as the golden egg, I DID wonder why the snitch couldn't be Accio'd.

-kel

"lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca> wrote:

>--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
>
>> Would it have been different if he actually saw Cedric's dead body, 
>or
>> heard Voldemort coldly saying "Kill the spare?" I don't know.
>
>The way they were in control of things (ie. not at all) at the end of 
>GoF, I wouldn't have been surprised if Draco had seen the body. No, I 
>think JKR meant to symbolize that Draco has gone off the deep end. 
>
>Now, whether he can come back is another question. But I think he's 
>already crossed the crucial line.
>
>Eileen



__________________________________________________________________
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 coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Fri Apr 19 19:15:41 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:15:41 -0000
Subject: I Hear 'Em Knockin' (filk)
Message-ID: <a9pqct+raj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37983

Madam Pomfrey in her first solo filk! (sorry for those got this 
twice: I forgot to include a subject line the first time)

I Hear `Em Knockin' 

(To the tune of I Hear You Knockin')

Dedicated to Pippin

THE SCENE: The Waiting Room of Pomfrey's Infirmary, where Harry is 
again hospitalized. A huge crowd comprised of both Harry's well-
wishers and ill-seekers are being denied entry by the imposing Madam 
Pomfrey

POMFREY
The Dark Lord says he needs a pint of blood
It's Quidditch practice time, says Ollie Wood.
Ron says he's  bearing an urgent summons
I hear `em knockin, but they can't come in

Herm says she needs to teach him Accio
The Slytherins all miss their favorite foe
And here's a strange seat from the Weasley twins
I hear `em knockin, but they can't come in

Ahhh yeah
  Let me hear it
  Ohhooo woo

First Albus came here to recite maxims
Then Dobby dropped by for some head-bangin'
And Molly came to give some motherin'
I hear `em knockin, but they can't come in

(She addresses the crowd directly)

I'm telling ev'ryone from Black to Lupin
This boy is delicate and needs restin'
He has to start his recuperatin'
And when he's finished, you can all come in 
Yeah
 Awwhoooo

(Disappointed but obedient, everyone quietly exits in response to 
Pomfrey's imperious command)

  - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm





From fluxed at earthlink.net  Fri Apr 19 20:42:57 2002
From: fluxed at earthlink.net (vulgarweed)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:42:57 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore wand/animagus; small families and Houses
In-Reply-To: <F42cO8TUvkXqnIs56Xv00004389@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9pvgh+bvof@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37984

Melody wrote:

> I have a hard time with the idea that Dumbledore is an Animagus. 
Just 
> because he's a really powerful wizard who's an expert at 
Transfiguration, 
> doesn't mean he has to be an Am=nimagus.
> 
> Remember when Hermione says that she looked up Professor McGonagall 
on the 
> list of registered Animagi? If Dumbledore was on the list, wouldn't 
she 
> mention it?
> 
I have a hard time with too many Animagi everywhere too, and I agree 
that Dumbledore doesn't need to be one. But if he *is* one, the 
reason he might not pop up on that list is that Hermione looked up 
only the list for this century (meaning the 20th). Dumbledore, being 
150 or so, would probably be on the 19th century list.

Now, even though I am tired of the Revelation of Animagism! Plot 
Twist and hope JKR doesn't use it again, I _do_ wonder if they're as 
rare as they're hyped to be. In canon right now, we know of five, 
only one of whom is registered. What if that's actually pretty much 
the typical ratio of registered to unregistered animagi out there in 
the wizard world, or even a skewed-low one? I mean, if it's so easy 
to hide that three unsubtle teenage boys and the -extremely- unsubtle 
Rita Skeeter can figure it out and get away with it indefinitely, 
what's the advantage in registering, unless you want a high and 
secure position that might need background checks, and also require 
you to demonstrate your ability in public a lot, like McGonagall has? 

On the small families and Sorting thing.
I suspect that having one kid might just be kind of the norm in the 
wizard world right now. Maybe they have better birth control than 
Muggles do (in fact, I'm sure of it!); maybe, having longer life 
spans, they don't need to have many children because in times of 
peace at least, the death rate is pretty low (compare this to 
Tolkien's elves, who don't die and barely reproduce at all). This of 
course would suggest that the Weasleys have so many kids purely 
because they wanted and intended to, which I would like to believe, 
so I think I will! So they get a lot of attention because it's really 
unusual and ALSO it's perhaps yet another reason why the Malfoys 
sneer--such profligate breeding, such a peasantish litter, is just 
gauche, low-rent, tacky.

But then, is Muggle-born Herm an only child? Well, some Muggles do 
that too. I myself am an only child with no complaints about it; so's 
my only first cousin in the US. It's really not that rare, and seems 
to be becoming more common. More children survive childhood than 
don't these days, and fewer families need as many farmhands as 
possible, so patterns change.

On Sorting--I'm wondering whether or not all or almost all Hogwarts 
kids actually negotiate with the Sorting Hat to choose their House. 
Wasn't Dumbledore's "it is our choices that determine who we are" 
speech made in this context? Maybe Padma and Parvati felt more of a 
need/desire to develop independently of each other than Fred and 
George did. Maybe Hermione figured she already had the hard work, 
cleverness, and ambition stuff down cold and that her courage was 
what she needed most to _develop_. Kids are often more self-aware 
than adults give them credit for, and I can believe Dumbledore would 
want to get them used to making important choices as early as 
possible. But most kids at that age might opt for the familiarity of 
whatever House their family's culture most leans toward (the Muggle-
born kids would pick the one that most appealed in some other way); 
if the Sorting happened at, say, 15, I bet hardly *anybody* would be 
in the same House as their parents were. The joke is, of course, that 
it is not commonly known that _everybody_ picks, so everybody thinks 
_they're_ kind of weird and uncertain and special.

AV






From editor at texas.net  Fri Apr 19 23:14:31 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:14:31 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape? A father figure?  Ewwwwww
References: <a9p785+iu6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b401c1e7f7$f75892c0$f37763d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 37985

Siriusgeologist said, surely knowing I would leap in:

> But might I respectfully say, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?  SNAPE A
> FATHER FIGURE, to HARRY?????

Okay. I took about fourteen hours and searched the message archives <note to
self: throw nonwashable-paint-and-Nair-filled water balloon at designer of
Yahoo message search engine>.

I lifted pertinent thoughts from two of mine, to save you all having to deal
with the Search Engine From Hell. For the intrepid, I do give the message
numbers, and I'd strongly urge the truly interested to look up the messages
and check out the responses--these were a couple of really interesting
threads.

A clarification, by the way--Snape as a father figure, at least in my usage
of this phrase, refers to Snape filling some aspect of the role in Harry's
psyche, whether perceived consciously or not. I am not talking about Snape
being aware of this or casting himself in this role.

First quoted message, #14593 (3-18-01):

I had a weird thought. I think you must include Snape (and Lupin) in the
father figure list. Let me explain!!! I'm not *just* a Snape loony.

I have a book called "Gift of an Eagle" or something like that, about a
man who had a trained golden eagle--it was the whole from egg-to-release
story. This was the eagle who appeared in several (oddly named) True
Life Adventures by Disney, and some "Lassie" episodes, etc. ANYway, this
eagle adored her trainer, giving him many behaviors observed by eagles
with their mates, and detested the trainer's son, attacking him at any
opportunity. The author (the son) speculated that part of the reason
this eagle thrived so when in captivity was the broad range of "normal"
behaviors she was able to experience--having a mate, defending her
territory from the enemy (the son), etc.

Harry's character reminds me of this eagle--in an artificial situation,
transferring behaviors to those who can support the role. I think that
the relationship between a father and a son is tremendously complex, and
must of necessity have both postive and negative aspects for a balanced
maturity. Harry has several adult males in his life, who fulfill
portions of the role of father. Dumbledore has the sense of power to
him, someone who knows more, the source of answers and instruction.
Sirius (and Lupin) are the companion, the person who comes to be your
friend, too, as you mature. And Snape is the negative aspect. He's the
one who doesn't understand, who sets curfews, who won't let you explain,
the one you just *hate* and can't wait to move out of his house. I think
together, these men are providing Harry with what he needs,
emotionally---and you need the negative, as well as the positive. I
doubt this is deliberate on their parts--I think it's just the way they
each are--but I think this is how Harry's psyche is accepting them. He
has not considered Snape a physical threat to him since the first book;
he really reacts to him the way a boy does who does not get along with
his father.

I think Harry has removed himself completely from any emotional
connection with the Dursleys, so that Uncle Vernon doesn't even qualify
for the negative father aspects. He's an adversary, plain and simple.
<end quoted message>

Susan McGee (Schlobin) responded in this thread, by the way, that she
perceived Hagrid as a fraternal, not paternal role, which resonates with me.
Harry identifies too much with Hagrid for Hagrid to be truly paternal; more
like an older brother.

Second quoted message, #27617 (10-13-01):

I spotted this thread during a tiptoe through the archives, and thought
I'd bring it back up since it's been rather a while, and new thoughts on
this might be fun.

This came up during a discussion of family-substitutes that Harry has
bonded to--Molly as a mother figure, of course, but the discussions of
father figure got interesting. Here, as I recall, was the rundown [his
own parents are in the mix, but only as ideals, not real people he
associates with]:

Hagrid--not really paternal. More of an adult friend; perhaps fraternal.
Harry's right at the age when children start having friends who are
non-related adults.
Dumbledore--father figure, but remote. Respected, loved, even revered,
but not terribly close. Nobody you ask for the car keys, if you know
what I mean.
Arthur Weasley--father figure, more intimate. Respected, but not revered
as Dumbledore is; the everyday, useful father, the advice-n-counsel,
have-a-beer-with dad.
Here was the one I got flak for, and would like thoughts on the most:
Snape. Father figure, mostly the negative connotations. The aspect of
father that you rebel against, the one who sets curfews, who doesn't
listen, who just doesn't understand, who doesn't even want to, the one
you come to appreciate only much, much later. Resented, but respected.
This is the sort of relationship where a bond grows, but when (sometimes
if) discovered, comes as a surprise, even a shock.

I thought that Harry has nicely covered all the aspects of father in
these characters, and by separating the different paternal functions
like that, is free to have stronger associations with these men--he's
not resenting one man one day, loving that same man the next--the
reactions to each aspect are separated; they are different men.
<end second quote>

I always think I said things better the first time, and in this case I'm
glad I didn't try to recap and found you all the originals.

Sorry about the length; let me know what you think.

--Amanda, premier Snapologist








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Apr 19 22:38:35 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:38:35 -0000
Subject: Men in Cloaks (FILK)
Message-ID: <a9q69b+aspa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37986

Men In Cloaks
Dedicated to CMC
A filk by Pippin, to the tune of "Men in Tights" by Mel Brooks
The time: early November, 1981, shortly after the fall of 
Voldemort
The scene: somewhere near Vernon Dursley's workplace

VERNON:
They're men, they're men in cloaks
They're standing on the corner looking like jokes
They're  men, they're men in cloaks
These conferrees a sense of unease evoke
Did I hear "Potter"? My poor Petunia's going to have a stroke
Those men, those men in cloaks
How dare they be  disturbing us normal blokes

THE WIZARDS:
We're men, (and witches too!) we're men in cloaks
Though usually we're harder to see than mokes*
We're men (magical men!) we're men in cloaks
This news that we hear our terror and fear revokes
We are rejoicing, this happy, happy day our joy provokes
We're men, we're men in cloaks
We're off our guard embracing those Muggle folks!
A toast!

*According to Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, the 
moke is a silver green lizard with the power to shrink itself out of 
sight.




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Fri Apr 19 23:05:03 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:05:03 -0000
Subject: Draco and Hagrid, Neville sneaks in
In-Reply-To: <55.25ef8956.29f19159@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9q7qv+vlvd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37987

I said, parenthetically:
>>BTW, I think that those who see Draco as 'only' engaging in mild 
bullying and verbal abuse without any real determination to make his 
malice stick have a case to answer in Buckbeak: even if Lucius took 
over the running of the case, it seems clear that Draco was out from 
the start to inflict real damage on Hagrid, both emotionally and on 
his career.

and Heidi replied, implicitly:

 > And I also don't really think that it's a significant degree of 
cruelty for 
> him to have been set against Hagrid after Buckbeak struck him in 
3rd year. It 
> says pretty clearly in FB&WTFT that they are dangerous creatures, 
and yes he 
> should've paid attention and not insulted Buckbeak, but on the same 
line, 
> Hagrid should not have brought the hippogryffs to class. They. 
Were. 
> Dangerous. And you can't really blame him for thinking that Hagrid 
should be 
> sacked for doing something that was dangerous to the students - but 
then 
> again, I think Hagrid's done a lot of things which aren't exactly 
sensible 
> from a teaching perspective.

I think the thing that bugs me is the intersection of Draco's 
smugness with what is happening to Hagrid: if Draco was really acting 
(ie not play-acting) upset and hurt, I would understand wanting to 
get Hagrid dealt with.  Conversely, if he just made use of his injury 
to mess the Quidditch schedule about, and get Pansy's sympathy, and 
taunted Hagrid over his inability to manage his lessons that would be 
mean but in line with the idea that he is unpleasant but not 
seriously malicious.  However, he seems to play up his injury in 
order to achieve his end, and then gloat over Hagrid's expected 
downfall.

Heidi again, tangentially:

>Of course, I feel the same way about Madam Hooch and the first 
flying lesson too...

Me, discursively:

This sounds like a pernicious dose of common sense invading our 
fantasy world (though it has always puzzled me that pre-Hogwarts, you 
can throw a child out of the window and be sure that if magical, they 
will be OK; once there, it's dangerous to fall off a broomstick - 
perhaps the education process destroys instinctive defences... but 
Neville hasn't received any education to speak of yet?).  Begone, 
temptress!

There is another Draco issue: the more we can excuse his canon 
behaviour, the less redemption he needs.  To complete the picture of 
children growing up, do we need *some* character in Harry's 
generation who really is evil and *needs* to change their attitude, 
as we suppose Snape did in the previous generation?

David





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Apr 19 23:39:07 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:39:07 -0000
Subject: Snape? A father figure? No, but still not bad.
In-Reply-To: <a9pm38+6289@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9q9qr+vmu4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37988


> > Carole wrote:
> > 
> > "... how can you possible suggest that he's been "a true 
father 
> > figure" He's not showing Harry how to love or be loved."  
> > 

<snip>
>>>Yes I will concede that Harry has learned valuable things 
from Snape, 
but how to treat a son is certainly NOT one of them. And I realize 
you agree with that, but the point of my post was to illustrate 
where Snape is NOT fatherly...not to necessarily illustrate that he 
was not important or valuable.<<<

Even a loving  father may not always seem so in a child's 
perception. IMO,Snape embodies the rule-enforcing, protective 
aspects of fatherhood, which may seem unreasonable,harsh 
and demanding even when they are well-meant. To the child, the 
loving father and the demanding father seem to be two different 
people, one benign and the other not, and so they are 
represented in fantasy. 


I disagree that Snape is "trying to get Harry expelled." Has he 
ever seriously tried to persuade McGonagall or Dumbledore to 
do it? They are the only ones who have that power. The most 
he's done is threaten Harry and complain of Dumbledore's 
lenience to Fudge (and Dumbledore is quite unlikely to take any 
advice from *him* about running the school.)

Pippin




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Fri Apr 19 18:51:55 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:51:55 -0000
Subject: Draco and redemption potential (long)
In-Reply-To: <55.25ef8956.29f19159@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9pp0b+o9n0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37989

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/19/2002 11:03:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> lucky_kari at y... writes: 
> > 
> > Now, whether he can come back is another question. But I think 
he's 
> > already crossed the crucial line.


Heidi wrote:
> What crucial line is that? The Line of Saying Obnoxious Things? 
The Line of 
> Being Cruel?  Or the Line of Coping With Things One Cannot Really 
Comprehend 
> by Joking About Them, which a lot of teens then would've crossed 
after 9/11. 
> 
> ANd I also don't really think that it's a significant degree of 
cruelty for 
> him to have been set against Hagrid after Buckbeak struck him in 
3rd year. It 
> says pretty clearly in FB&WTFT that they are dangerous creatures, 
and yes he 
> should've paid attention and not insulted Buckbeak, but on the 
same line, 
> Hagrid should not have brought the hippogryffs to class. They. 
Were. 
> Dangerous. And you can't really blame him for thinking that Hagrid 
should be 
> sacked for doing something that was dangerous to the students - 
but then 
> again, I think Hagrid's done a lot of things which aren't exactly 
sensible 
> from a teaching perspective. Of course, I feel the same way about 
Madam Hooch 
> and the first flying lesson too...
>

Are you actually saying that Draco wasn't cruel about Hagrid before 
the Buckbeak incident?  His whole sneering dismissal of Hagrid as 
being a "sort of servant" and describing his living conditions made 
it very clear that he despised him before he even had any personal 
contact with him (PS/SS).  I also don't buy your defense of him in 
the Buckbeak incident, either.  Hogwarts classes have the students 
dealing with dangerous things all the time (as you point out in the 
first flying lesson...in the first year, no less!)  Potions also 
exposes them to significant harm, and don't even get me started on 
Quidditch. They don't perceive danger in the WW the way we do 
(probably because of the superiority of wizarding medicine)since it 
does seem to be a warrior culture.
I've read all the posts exploring the possiblity of Draco's 
redemtion, and am utterly unconvinced my any of them.  His character 
has been consistent from the first moment we meet him, and has 
steadily gotten more malignant.  By the time the kids are on the 
train in GoF, he is probably 15 (or nearly so), and has clearly 
chosen his path.  I agree with lucky kari that he has crossed an 
important line, and would not find it believable or likely that he 
would change his position after this.  Like it or not, most people's 
basic characters are fairly well fixed by this age.  It's not at all 
like he's making the same sort of stupid jokes (some) teens who were 
far removed from the 9/11 situation made.  No indeed, this is 
*personal* for little Draco, and he clearly relishes the upcoming 
fun when Hemione and Ron "get theirs".  I firmly believe JKR is 
carefully showing us how a truly evil person develops, and don't 
think she's going to give the cowardly, bullying Draco character a 
personality transplant.  He's too far gone.


Jo Serenadust




From alina at distantplace.net  Fri Apr 19 21:29:48 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:29:48 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Re: Pettigrew & Sorting Hat & Only Children
References: <1019194002.2594.72117.m12@yahoogroups.com> <3CC01578.7030801@indy.net>
Message-ID: <000f01c1e7e9$565b3a20$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37990

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brooks Rowlett 
  To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:02 AM
  Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Re: Pettigrew & Sorting Hat & Only Children


  > The Sorting Hat seems to have a bias when it comes to families.


  >The tendency of the Sorting Hat to sort by family is also apparent with all
  the Slytherin families.


  Ehmmm...urmmmm... Occam's Razor here?  I think the cart if before the horse in 
  saying the Sorting Hat has a family bias.   Wouldn't it be as or even more 
  likely for  the way a child is raised, to influence his/her attitudes in a way 
  the Sorting Hat reads?


Although it seems as if the Sorting Hat sorts members of the same family into the same House, what about the Patil twins? One's a Gryffindor, one's a Ravenclaw. Are they the exception to the rule or are the Weasleys the exception? Personally, I dont' think there's a set pattern here. Some families share all their beliefs and some families have very varied personalities, I think we'll find many examples either way. 

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.344 / Virus Database: 191 - Release Date: 02/04/2002


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Apr 19 21:46:31 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:46:31 -0000
Subject: Harry's Sorting was :Pettigrew & Sorting Hat 
In-Reply-To: <002c01c1e6f9$54f3e600$03fea8c0@death-computer>
Message-ID: <a9q37n+c1fa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37991

> Greg wrote:
> 
> <I think the common assumption among people is that the Sorting Hat
> takes what it sees and makes a decision based on that.  Is it not at
> all possible that the Sorting Hat's job for people like Peter is to
> force them to grow as people.>

> Jamie Lipton wrote

> We do see evidence of this in Harry's struggle with the Sorting 
Hat.  It  wants to place him in Slytherin so that he will accomplish 
great things, even though it doesn't seem like Harry is a very 
ambitious sort of person.

I had a slightly different understanding of Harry's Sorting. The hat 
was having difficulty placing him - but only mentioned about how 
Slytherin could help him achieve great things after he had said that 
he didn't want to go into Slytherin. There is nothing really to 
suggest that he would have gone to Slytherin were it not for his 
desperate request -  Dumbledore's speech about choices is only after 
Harry believes that he should have gone into Slytherin. IMO Harry's 
choice ensured that he went into Gryffindor, but he might have gone 
there anyway.
 
> The tendency of the Sorting Hat to sort by family is also apparent 
with all the Slytherin families.  And the fact that it originally 
wanted to put Harry in Slytherin makes me think he had relatives in 
that house - possibly Slytherin himself.  Of course, he also had 
relatives in Gryffindor, so that could go either way.

The fact that Harry appeared to have tendencies for 3 of the houses 
(I don't think that he has Hufflepuff tendencies - loyal, yes, 
hardworker, no!), meant that he was difficult to place. He may well 
have had family in different houses. However, Dumbledore seems to 
suggest that his Slytherin tendencies were due to the powers "given" 
to him by Voldemort, and thus not inherited traits. 

I keep wondering about Pettigrew and the Sorting. Let us suppose that 
he was a Gryffindor. Perhaps he has not yet shown any bravery 
(although I also think that cutting off your hand is brave - or 
foolhardy). However, the Sorting Hat could probably see inherent and 
as yet untapped seams of bravery. Perhaps this aspect of Pettigrew's 
character will eventually outshine any other characteristic. I guess 
I'm thinking of the sacrifice I believe he will eventually make to 
save Harry. This act of bravery would then be a compelling reason for 
him to be put in Gryffindor, even if for the first 35 years of his 
life, most wizards would only see a coward.

Ali





From alexpie at aol.com  Sat Apr 20 02:39:54 2002
From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:39:54 EDT
Subject: Continuing Education: A Wizarding Option?
Message-ID: <1a6.10152d5.29f22efa@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37992

The other day, I was thinking about what my career might be in Potterverse.  
I sadly realized that it would be much as it is in this one--that is, editing 
the likes of Gilderoy Lockhart.  I then began to wonder if graduate education 
exists in Potterverse.  That is, if Ron decided to be a librarian and 
Hermione decided to be a nurse, what would they do?  Obviously, Nurse 
Pomphrey has had greater education that than which is offered at Hogwarts, as 
has the librarian (sorry about lack of name, books inaccessible at the 
moment).  In addition, aside from the DADA teachers, most of the teachers at 
Hogwarts seem to have chosen teaching as a career (particularly McGonnagall). 
 Surely when they graduated Hogwarts, they were not qualified as teachers at 
seventeen!
  Any thoughts?
  Cheers--
   Ba, of Ravenclaw (and what else could an editor be?)



From heidit at netbox.com  Sat Apr 20 03:08:14 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:08:14 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's redemption/ Accio
In-Reply-To: 364b
Message-ID: <16600080.1854277272@imcingular.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37993

kellybroughton at netscape.net

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Jo herself stated in a chat that Draco will NOT be redeemed. It made me sad to read that, because I would love for Draco to "see the light" and rebel against his father.

But then again... Jo can change her mind at any time....
***

Someone asked in a chat if Harry and Draco would join together to fight evil, and she said that was a rumor on the internet that she had heard as well.

There are 3 ways, at least, to read the answer:
1. She gave a nonanswer in the first place and hasn't said whether the rumor was true or false
2. Draco will fight evil, he just won't join with Harry when he does it
Or
3. Draco will never fight evil in any way-he'll just run from it like he did in PS

Two of the above may be true.

Heidi Tandy
Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce
http://www.FictionAlley.org



From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 20 04:49:29 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 04:49:29 -0000
Subject: Continuing Education: A Wizarding Option?
In-Reply-To: <1a6.10152d5.29f22efa@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9qs0p+28q8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37994

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., alexpie at a... wrote:
. 
>  Surely when they graduated Hogwarts, they were not qualified as 
teachers at 
> seventeen!
>   Any thoughts?
>   Cheers--
>    Ba, of Ravenclaw (and what else could an editor be?)

I have come to believe that Hogwarts graduates who were interested in 
certain fields would seek apprenticeships to learn about their 
intended profession. But I think a wizarding graduate school could 
really be something!

Zoe Hooch




From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Fri Apr 19 23:27:16 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 16:27:16 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Have Slytherins always been hated?
Message-ID: <GPLKGNCFOJMEFCAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37995

>So anyways to sum up, maybe the Slytherins weren't hated when the
>Marauders were in school. Maybe that is a fairly recent development.

>Megs

I'm not entirely sure, but I think Voldemort was rising in power when the Marauders were in school.  There's a timeline of the entire HP universe that's been compiled from dates mentioned in the books, and ages mentioned by JKR in interviews 
( http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_main.html )
It indicates that the Marauders were probably in school in the 1970s and that's around the time Voldemort began to rise in power. It makes it a tough call as to any prejudices existing during their schooling though near the end I'd have to say that there were probably a lot.

---
--Hana
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high 
and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."  Michelangelo 

Words to live by "Semper ubi sub ubi" 
(::grins:: always wear under wear)




See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Apr 20 08:07:48 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 08:07:48 -0000
Subject: Canon Draco // Snape & Personality Disorder // Only Children
Message-ID: <a9r7kk+gv1e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37996

In which quite a few of the things I say have already been said by 
other people.

Manda R[ickman?] Cleveland wrote:

<< First, when Malfoy enters their compartment, he and his buddies 
are described as looking "more pleased with themselves, more arrogant 
and more menacing, than Harry had ever seen them." In the next 
paragraph, it says that Malfoy has a smirk "quivering on his lips" 
(both quotes GoF, US Edition, p 729). Perhaps it's just the word 
choice there, but I'm a bit confused as to how a "quivering" smirk 
leads to the appearance initially described. To me, quivering 
indicates a *lack* of confidence, not an excess of it. >>

I interpreted a smirk "quivering" on his lips as meaning that he was 
trying unsuccessfully to suppress the smirk and keep a straight face 
and look dignified and intimidating. Your suggestion, that he was 
faking the smirk, is encouraging, because the thing that troubles me 
MOST about canon Draco is that that crack about "Mudbloods and 
Muggle-lovers first! Well -- second -- Diggory was the f--" is so 
STUPID! You just DON'T nitpick and correct yourself in the middle of 
making dramatic threats (or warnings).

Marina Rusalka wrote:

<< But if Cedric Diggory's death hasn't made him start questioning if 
Voldemort is really good, then what the heck will it take? Cedric was 
not a Mudblood, and while he may have been a Muggle-lover, we don't 
see him conspicuously hanging around with any Muggle-borns the way 
Ron and Harry do. >>

Unless Cho Chang is, as I believe, Muggle-born. But I imagine that IF 
he had been thinking of Cedric as a Muggle-lover, he wouldn't have 
felt any need to correct his statement "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers 
first, well, second". 

<< He's a nice, pureblood wizard from an inoffensive house. There's 
no indication that he ever had any problems with Draco. Now he's dead 
just 'cause he happened to be standing next to Harry at the wrong 
time -- and Draco doesn't seem to see anything wrong with that. >>

I find it all too easy to believe that Draco had enough grudges 
against Cedric to feel vindicated by his death. First, he may well 
have been raised to hate the Diggories as much as the Weasleys: the 
Diggories may not be as impoverished as the Weasleys, but Amos's 
accent seems even lower class, and Amos (maybe his ancestors as well) 
was fighting on the side of the MoM and Arthur against the Dark Side. 
Second, Cedric and Draco competed directly against each other in 
Quidditch, as both were Seekers: maybe Cedric had beaten Draco to the 
Snitch. The frequent mention of Cedric's good looks suggests a third 
possiblity: that some girl (or boy) who had rejected Draco was making 
goo-goo eyes at Cedric. If he really believed in purity of blood (to 
me it is obvious that he believes not in purity of blood but in 
primacy of Malfoys) but let his personal spite blind him to what an 
excellent recruit to the Dark Lord's cause the pureblooded and 
talented (he must be both talented and powerful, to have been chosen 
Triwizard Candidate) Cedric would be, that would be yet more 
canon-Draco stupidity.  

Which is a pity, because it would be a more interesting situation if 
Draco had had to resolve his cognitive dissonance by persuading 
himself that it was HARRY who had killed Cedric, perhaps by pushing 
Cedric in front of him as a human shield.

Steph Merlyn Sherlock wrote:

<< Is it possible that Snape may suffer or may have suffered from any 
sort of mental or personality disorder? >>

Who doesn't? 

Besides, probably everyone who lived through the Voldemort Years is 
suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

<<SCHIZOID PERSONALITY DISORDER
Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following: 
(a) few, if any, activities, provide pleasure; 
(b) emotional coldness, detachment or flattened affectivity; 
(c) limited capacity to express either warm, tender feelings or anger 
towards others; 
(d) apparent indifference to either praise or criticism; 
(e) little interest in having sexual experiences with another person 
(taking into account age); 
(f) almost invariable preference for solitary activities; 
(g) excessive preoccupation with fantasy and introspection; 
(h) lack of close friends or confiding relationships (or having only 
one) and of desire for such relationships; 
(i) marked insensitivity to prevailing social norms and conventions. 
>>

Definitely not THAT one! The first four points are SO unlike him that 
the others can't matter. (a) Besides getting enough pleasure from 
Potions that he writes love poetry about them ("the beauty of the 
softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes"), he also 
greatly enjoys taunting Gryffindors (and Lockhart). (b) and (c) A 
person who can fly into such staggering rages (as in The Shrieking 
Shack) doesn't have flattened affectivity nor limited capacity to 
express anger. (d) He shows such a desperate craving for praise that 
he *fawns* on the unworthy Fudge in hope of getting the Order of 
Merlin. Such an objection to being criticised at all that it drives 
him into rages.

<<PARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDER:
Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following: 
(a) excessive sensitiveness to setbacks and rebuffs; 
(b) tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive 
insults and injuries or slights; 
(c) suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by 
misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or 
contemptuous; 
(d) a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping 
with the actual situation; 
(e) recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual 
fidelity of spouse or sexual partner; 
(f) tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a 
persistent self-referential attitude; 
(g) preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations 
of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large. >>

With the possible exception of (e), that's dear Sevvie, all right. 
Grudges, unjustified suspiciousness of other people's motives, 
conspiratorial explanations ... 20 years later he is still blaming 
Lupin for the Prank... he got angry at Hermione (on the first day of 
class first year) for answering his questions; God only knows what 
evil motive he attributed to her, when it's obvious to the rest of us 
that she was trying to *please* him.

<<DISSOCIAL (Antisocial) PERSONALITY DISORDER
Personality disorder, usually coming to attention because of a gross 
disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and 
characterized by at least 3 of the following: 
(a) callous unconcern for the feelings of others; 
(b) gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard 
for social norms, rules and obligations; 
(c) incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no 
difficulty in establishing them; 
(d) very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for 
discharge of aggression, including violence; 
(e) incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience,  
particularly punishment; 
(f) marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible 
rationalizations, for the behaviour that has brought the patient into 
conflict with society. >>

I'm not convinced that Snape's behaviour is GROSSLY disparate with 
prevailing WIZARDING social norms. Remember, even calm, gentle, kind 
Remus is about to kill Peter in cold blood until Harry tells him not 
to. Revenge and (justified) killing seem to be part of the norms. 
He's not (b) irresponsible: he teaches the full curriculum of Potions 
and he grades fairly: when Lucius was bawling out Draco, he said a 
girl of no wizarding blood whatsoever (that would be Hermione) had 
gotten better marks than him in every class (that would include 
Potions); he is (g) supremely skilled at feeling guilty about his 
Death Eating days (I don't think I can PROVE that by canon, but isn't 
it obvious?); and I would say he's the OPPOSITE of (c): I don't see 
him establishing non-hostile relationships easily, but he seems to 
have maintained his various collegial relationships with Filch, 
McGonagall, etc, over the years of his teaching career. (Filch whom 
he trusts to bandage his leg bitten by Fluffy. McGonagall who backs 
him up instantly when he invited Lockhart to rescue Ginny from the 
Basilisk.)

Jamie Lipton wrote:

> Why do so many wizarding families seem to have only one child? 

Maybe they only have one child AT A TIME. Wizarding folk live a lot 
longer than Muggles, maybe twice as long (JKR said Dumbledor is 150, 
McGonagall is 70), so it could be that a witch's child-bearing years 
are age 18 to 80 instead of 18 to 40. So a couple could space their 
children 20 years apart and nonetheless have 4 children.




From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Fri Apr 19 23:41:58 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 16:41:58 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Powerful Weasleys (WAS: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!)
Message-ID: <KMBPCAPLLGNEFCAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37997

>I'd like to add a new spin to this (I hope it's new
>anyhow). I absolutely agree with Jo, but wanted to
>point out that the Weasly's have been thus far
>portrayed as the cuddly, earthy-type wizards. However,
>I am betting that they are extremely powerful wizards
>who played a big part in the previous battle with
>Voldemort and will be instrumental in the next
>'chapter'. 
>
>Sop

I'd have to agree with this.  Dumbledore did ask if he could count on Molly and Arthur (GoF, 617) for the tasks ahead, and I think that he would have avoided that if they weren't powerful.  Dumbledore seems to be a man who works with a person's capabilities -- he never, for instance, set Harry up for something he had no way of handling, such as the incidents in PS/SS -- it was ~difficult~ for Harry, but not beyond his capabilities.  Snape, at the end of GoF is sort of given the option of going on his mission "If you are ready ... if you are prepared ..." (GoF, 619)  I'm not sure that Snape would actually have said no, even if he wasn't ready, but Dumbledore's giving him the option.

I think that the only people that Dumbledore will ask to help will be people with the skill to help (and are trustworthy) without being lambs to slaughter so to speak.  

None of this is really proof, of course, that the Weasleys are powerful, but I think it indicates that there's a good chance that they will make worthy allies.

--Hana
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high 
and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."  Michelangelo 

Words to live by "Semper ubi sub ubi" 
(::grins:: always wear under wear)






See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Sat Apr 20 00:25:40 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:25:40 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  Only Children/ Likeable Slytherins?
Message-ID: <OPPGDPGDOMPEFCAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37998

>The Sorting Hat itself doesn't give much away, only telling us of >their ambition, although the first Sorting Hat song does make the >chilling assertion that they will use any means to achieve their >ends.
>
>Eloise

I find this statement interesting.  The part about ambition isn't a problem -- after all, just because someone is ambitious, doesn't mean they're evil.  Wanting to eliminate evil threats, or stop wars, or become the best wizard/witch are all ambitions that might be considered noble.

The part about the ends justifying the means being "chilling" is really interesting.  You're making it sound very evil (which, granted it can be) but isn't that what Harry and friends do in every single book?  In PS/SS they sneak out after hours, they enter the forbidden corridor, they snoop for information when told not to (many times), they break past the traps to get to the stone, they trick Hagrid into giving information away etc.  The end result -- keeping the stone from Voldemort -- is very noble but they break a lot of rules to do so, not caring about the means as long as Voldemort is stopped. 

There are a lot of other examples -- the polyjuice potion and all the stolen ingredients, Ron and Harry using the car to get to Hogwarts, helping Norbert escape, cheating by cooperating to find out how to do the tasks in GoF -- the list goes on and on.  If those aren't examples of the ends justifying the means I don't know what are.  

Maybe it's an indication of why Harry would belong in Slytherin, or maybe it depends on which ends are sought and what means are used, but nothing the Sorting Hat says about the Slytherins, except possibly the phrase "power-hungry Slytherin" (GoF, 157), is actually an indicator of evil -- the traits are simply those that can be corrupted more easily depending on what a person allows to influence them.  

---
--Hana
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high 
and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."  Michelangelo 

Words to live by "Semper ubi sub ubi" 
(::grins:: always wear under wear)





See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Sat Apr 20 00:54:18 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:54:18 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape? A father figure?  Ewwwwww
Message-ID: <HDLHHMJAOFBFFCAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 37999

Carole said:

>Sure he protects Harry in SS because of some twisted sense of 
>obligations to satisfy a life debt.  But come on....Snape has 
>ridiculed, taunted, and just been wholly unpleasant to Harry and his 
>friends, how can you possible suggest that he's been "a true father 
>figure"  He's not showing Harry how to love or be loved. Most of the 
>time he appears to be a seething mass of resentment towards Harry. >He isn't offering any guidance through the perils of the wizarding 
>world.  He hasn't offered Harry anything overtly except malice and 
>sarcasm.  What kind of example is JKR setting up if she intends >Snape to be a father figure to Harry?  Seems to me he's trying to >get Harry expelled at first possible convenience.

I both agree and disagree with this.  Snape is ~not~ a loving father-figure, unless there are a lot of things going on in his head that we don't know about yet (which is distinctly possible knowing JKR). It's hard to say what his motivations are for treating Harry as he does simply because we really only get Harry's perspective and Harry's understandably biased in this.  

One explanation for his protectiveness of Harry is his "life debt" to James.  Is that all?  I have no idea because we have little background on Snape.  We do know that Snape is a former Death Eater who knows how Voldemort treats people and knows what Harry has to expect from fighting him.  The way he treats Harry could be a harsh way to force him to mature so that he'll survive any encounters with the Dark Lord.  If everyone coddles Harry and treats him like the "wonderful boy who lived" then would he really be prepared for the harshness of dealing with Voldemort? Isn't that part of Dumbledore's reasoning for leaving Harry with the Dursleys?  He didn't want Harry to grow up being treated like he was special (though I don't know if he expected the level of abuse that Harry grew up with, but then again, the abuse made him a stronger person who is less likely to go for the "power-hungry, bully" type people and more for the "defender-of-the-weak" type ones).    

The same goes for getting expelled to some extent.  If Harry gets expelled, he won't be a threat to Voldemort due to lack of magic and he may not become a target (especially if he vanishes into the Muggle world).  Now, I admit that this second line of reasoning is flawed, and is a lot less likely since Voldemort might want to hunt Harry down simply for revenge, but it is still a possibility.

>Yes Sirius is only able to appear occasionally, but look at the 
>interaction between them.  Harry trusts him to ask advice, goes to 
>him for support guidance.  Sirius Listens to Harry without malice 
>without ridicule and abuse.  I'm sorry but for a rle model Sirius is 
>a bit more Fatherly than anything I've seen out of Snape.

Definately.  The ultimate father-figure seems to be becomming Black's role, but it's hard to tell with JKR because she likes throwing in plot twists.  

When comparing the two, Snape is like a hated step-father usurping the role belonging to Black perhaps (again, simply speculation).

I am curious to see who will play more of a fatherly role in Harry's life in the future -- Snape (hated-stepfather), Black (cool dad), or Arthur Weasley (more of an uncle?).  I'm not sure about Arthur, but I do know that Molly Weasley definately gets the mother-figure role. That could be seen starting up in PS/SS and very definately by the end of GoF.  If Harry starts spending a lot of time with the Weasleys then Arthur's importance to Harry may grow (but I see it more as an uncle role myself than father, but you never know).

---
--Hana
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high 
and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."  Michelangelo 

Words to live by "Semper ubi sub ubi" 
(::grins:: always wear under wear)


See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From fluxed at earthlink.net  Fri Apr 19 20:47:30 2002
From: fluxed at earthlink.net (vulgarweed)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:47:30 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore wand/animagus; small families and Houses
In-Reply-To: <F42cO8TUvkXqnIs56Xv00004389@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9pvp2+nbko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38000

Melody wrote:

> I have a hard time with the idea that Dumbledore is an Animagus. 
Just 
> because he's a really powerful wizard who's an expert at 
Transfiguration, 
> doesn't mean he has to be an Am=nimagus.
> 
> Remember when Hermione says that she looked up Professor McGonagall 
on the 
> list of registered Animagi? If Dumbledore was on the list, wouldn't 
she 
> mention it?
> 
I have a hard time with too many Animagi everywhere too, and I agree 
that Dumbledore doesn't need to be one. But if he *is* one, the 
reason he might not pop up on that list is that Hermione looked up 
only the list for this century (meaning the 20th). Dumbledore, being 
150 or so, would probably be on the 19th century list.

Now, even though I am tired of the Revelation of Animagism! Plot 
Twist and hope JKR doesn't use it again, I _do_ wonder if they're as 
rare as they're hyped to be. In canon right now, we know of five, 
only one of whom is registered. What if that's actually pretty much 
the typical ratio of registered to unregistered animagi out there in 
the wizard world, or even a skewed-low one? I mean, if it's so easy 
to hide that three unsubtle teenage boys and the -extremely- unsubtle 
Rita Skeeter can figure it out and get away with it indefinitely, 
what's the advantage in registering, unless you want a high and 
secure position that might need background checks, and also require 
you to demonstrate your ability in public a lot, like McGonagall has? 

On the small families and Sorting thing.
I suspect that having one kid might just be kind of the norm in the 
wizard world right now. Maybe they have better birth control than 
Muggles do (in fact, I'm sure of it!); maybe, having longer life 
spans, they don't need to have many children because in times of 
peace at least, the death rate is pretty low (compare this to 
Tolkien's elves, who don't die and barely reproduce at all). This of 
course would suggest that the Weasleys have so many kids purely 
because they wanted and intended to, which I would like to believe, 
so I think I will! So they get a lot of attention because it's really 
unusual and ALSO it's perhaps yet another reason why the Malfoys 
sneer--such profligate breeding, such a peasantish litter, is just 
gauche, low-rent, tacky.

But then, is Muggle-born Herm an only child? Well, some Muggles do 
that too. I myself am an only child with no complaints about it; so's 
my only first cousin in the US. It's really not that rare, and seems 
to be becoming more common. More children survive childhood than 
don't these days, and fewer families need as many farmhands as 
possible, so patterns change.

On Sorting--I'm wondering whether or not all or almost all Hogwarts 
kids actually negotiate with the Sorting Hat to choose their House. 
Wasn't Dumbledore's "it is our choices that determine who we are" 
speech made in this context? Maybe Padma and Parvati felt more of a 
need/desire to develop independently of each other than Fred and 
George did. Maybe Hermione figured she already had the hard work, 
cleverness, and ambition stuff down cold and that her courage was 
what she needed most to _develop_. Kids are often more self-aware 
than adults give them credit for, and I can believe Dumbledore would 
want to get them used to making important choices as early as 
possible. But most kids at that age might opt for the familiarity of 
whatever House their family's culture most leans toward (the Muggle-
born kids would pick the one that most appealed in some other way); 
if the Sorting happened at, say, 15, I bet hardly *anybody* would be 
in the same House as their parents were. The joke is, of course, that 
it is not commonly known that _everybody_ picks, so everybody thinks 
_they're_ kind of weird and uncertain and special.

AV






From Kimstr at hotmail.com  Sat Apr 20 01:30:54 2002
From: Kimstr at hotmail.com (archgarchus)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 01:30:54 -0000
Subject: Snape the Father
Message-ID: <a9qgce+52a0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38001

Dear Everyone,

  Nice discussion we got here. Let me first say that I appreciate 
Amanda's well-researched archive hunt for Father/Snape references. 
And no, I am not out of my mind (at least I don't think so). Anyways, 
let me clarilfy...

 Yes, Snape is the negative father. He's the one who yells at you for 
getting an F, for coming in late, etc... Yet, with time you come to 
understand that as much as you may have resented it, this "father" 
was acting only in your own interest. That is part of the maturation 
process and it is why I believe that it is only in Book 7 (the 
concluding book, the most mature that we will ever see Harry) that 
Harry will understand that Snape is not the heartless wonder he 
appears to be. In fact, the story will be even more poignant when 
Snape's true motivations will be revealed. Just because a father 
figure is not "Ward Cleaver" does not mean that he is not a father 
figure.

Archgarchus





From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net  Sat Apr 20 02:00:44 2002
From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:00:44 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore as animagus
In-Reply-To: <1019265112.2932.21622.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020419215753.009ebbb0@mail.fantasysales.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38002

AV wrote.........

>~~~~~But if he *is* one, the
>reason he might not pop up on that list is that Hermione looked up
>only the list for this century (meaning the 20th). Dumbledore, being
>150 or so, would probably be on the 19th century list.~~~~~



I keep seeing this used as an argument for why Hermione didn't see his name 
on the list of Animagi for the 20th century...........I keep 
wondering.....since he is obviously still alive, wouldn't he still be a 
registered animagus and wouldn't he STILL be on the list?


---
Kendra Grant-Bingham
~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~
"Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count."






From david.bartmess at myactv.net  Sat Apr 20 03:57:55 2002
From: david.bartmess at myactv.net (David Bartmess)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:57:55 -0400
Subject: Dumbledore animagus
References: <1019265112.2932.21622.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <007601c1e81f$8d7d8bd0$ed0b5918@can3227406a>

No: HPFGUIDX 38003

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Melody B." <melodylemming at h...> wrote:

Remember when Hermione says that she looked up Professor McGonagallon the
 list of registered Animagi? If Dumbledore was on the list, wouldn't she
mention it?

Hermione only looked up the wizards this century that are Animagi.
Dumbledore is around 150, so he may have been listed in the previous
century's records.  I think there is a clue to him being an Animagi in SS
when he tells Harry that "I don't need a cloak to become invisible".  I
think about GoF when Rita Skeeter frequently made herself "invisible" to the
people around her by disguising herself as a beetle. Dumbledore is referred
to as "the greatest wizzard of our time", and we know from CoS that he used
to teach transfiguration at Hogwarts. Whth these things in mind, I would be
very suprized if Dumbledore isn't an Anamagi.

David Bartmess
david.bartmess at myactv.net







From elfundeb at aol.com  Sat Apr 20 12:01:00 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 08:01:00 EDT
Subject: Draco and redemption potential 
Message-ID: <80.1a86d7e8.29f2b27c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38004

Chiming in rather late here (as always) on Draco :

"'You've picked the losing side, Potter! ? Too late now,
Potter!  [Ron and Hermione will] be the first to go, now the 
Dark Lord's back!  Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first!  Well - 
second - Diggory was the f -`"  (GoF, US, 729).

Manda:

I don't believe that this quote makes Draco 
hopeless.  It could make him a teenaged kid who has never had to come 
to terms with death and doesn't grasp the hard reality of the 
situation.  He's glad to see the Dark Lord back because he's
always been told that the Dark Lord was good, and so far he's 
never seen anything to make him question that.  He's excited
about the possible results in relation to Ron and Hermione because
they're his enemies and, again, he doesn't really understand
death yet.  

My comment:

I find it hard to accept the premise that anyone who can gleefully anticipate 
the deaths of his classmates has much hope for redemption. (And Ron and 
Hermione are mainly guilty only of being friends of Harry, who rebuffed 
Draco's own overtures at friendship; and in Hermione's case, outperforming 
him at school). Recalling  how the Sorting Hat barely touched Draco's head 
before screaming, "Slytherin!" it seems to me that what the Hat saw -- no 
more and no less -- was a child who has no principles other than the 
Slytherin philosophy that it's perfectly acceptable to "use any means to 
achieve their ends" including murder.  Yes, the statements are death wishes 
and not threats, but IMO that may reflect nothing more than Draco's 
expectation that someone else will do the dirty work for him.  Besides, it's 
not the first time he's expressed those wishes (e.g., in CoS, after Hermione 
is Petrefied, he says, "Bet you five Galleons the next one dies.  Pity it 
wasn't Granger.").

In fact, based on past history, as Lucius seems to be rather pliant in 
fulfilling Draco's desires by whatever nefarious means are at hand (such as 
buying his way onto the Quidditch team after Draco complained that a new 
racing broom wouldn't be any good otherwise; having Buckbeak prosecuted - on 
false evidence - when Draco complained about it), I don't find it impossible 
to believe that Lucius might not carry out more of Draco's desires, such as 
targeting the Grangers or their neighborhood for attack, at Draco's 
suggestion. 

Nevertheless, though I am very close to thinking that Draco has gone over the 
edge beyond redeemability, I find it very difficult to accept the premise 
that a 14-year-old child is irredeemably evil, notwithstanding that a 
psychologist for an inner-city juvenile detention center told me just last 
week that in her opinion such cases do exist.  It seems unacceptable in books 
marketed to children, especially one that expressly emphasizes one's choices 
over nature and ability as a determinant of character.

Manda again:

More, I wonder about the level of confidence.  In my experience, 
people who showed the most confidence were often trying to cover 
up insecurity.  Maybe he's somewhat confused or not really sure 
what to think.  He certainly doesn't want anyone else to know
about it, though, and might overcompensate by acting as confident 
and gleeful as possible.  Again, this doesn't excuse the 
statements, but it would suggest that there's more to Draco, and 
that we can have hope for some of it. 

Me:

Oddly enough, I think Draco's lack of real confidence is the key to his 
possible "redeemability" such as it is.  We have seen little if any "good" 
qualities in Draco that could spark a redemption.    (I think someone 
suggested that Draco appeared friendly in Madam Malkin's and on the train, 
but I don't agree.  The Madam Malkin's scene suggests Draco was putting on an 
attitude even then, and his offer of friendship on the train wasn't much of 
an offer, - in effect, he told Harry to stick with him because his family was 
better than Ron's.   In fact, though I don't have hard evidence to support it 
except for Lucius' comment that it's not prudent to appear less than fond of 
Harry, I believe that Draco may have offered friendship to Harry on the train 
in PS/SS at Lucius' specific request, and that his failure to do so did not 
sit well with Lucius.)

Thus, I wonder if the agent for Draco's "redemption" is not some hidden good 
quality but his own weakness, and more specifically, his cowardice.  There 
are plenty of examples to illustrate this (Draco runs from the sight of 
Voldemort drinking unicorn blood in PS/SS; he backs off in the ferret scene 
in GoF when Harry comments on his mother, then takes a cheap shot at Harry 
when his back is turned).  Draco has dealt with his weakness, IMO, in the 
same way that Pettigrew did.  Pettigrew felt weak, and sought stronger folk, 
the Marauders, as allies.  When it appeared that Voldemort would prevail, he 
sought Voldemort's protection.  Draco similarly  has surrounded himself with 
Crabbe's and Goyle's brawn for personal protection (in exchange for Draco's 
brains and leadership), and relies on the family money and Lucius' influence 
for the rest.  I think it's the latter, and the continued evidence of Lucius' 
power (Lucius even succeeded in removing Dumbledore as headmaster - at least 
temporarily), that gives him so many apparent fans in Slytherin House.  But 
if he finds his back against the wall, or the tide is turning, could he keep 
it up?

Unfortunately for Draco, I can imagine Lucius  taking Draco along on a spot 
of Muggle-torture, and while it might sicken Draco, I think it's at least 
equally likely that the combination of his contempt of Muggles (to which 
Lucius has conditioned him) and his own struggle with cowardice would cause 
him to relish the opportunity to participate.  He might find the feeling of 
power exciting and comforting.  But Muggle-torture is easy (the World Cup 
episode demonstrated that wizards can pretty much do what they please with 
Muggles).  His epiphany, if any were to occur, would be more likely in my 
view to come if he is required to do something difficult, like engaging an 
equal opponent in a confrontation.  To date we have never seen him do 
anything but back down from his threats when pressed, starting back in PS/SS 
when he failed to show up for the wizard's duel.  If he ever felt personally 
threatened, I think he would break down, perhaps blurt out things he 
shouldn't, in effect forcing him to switch sides in acknowledgement of the 
fact that he'll never get the respect of his father.  It's not heroic, but 
IMO it's the best we can reasonably expect from Draco.  

Debbie



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From meboriqua at aol.com  Sat Apr 20 13:21:28 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:21:28 -0000
Subject: Draco *does* have a chance!
In-Reply-To: <a9q7qv+vlvd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9rq0o+26bh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38005

David wrote:
> 
> There is another Draco issue: the more we can excuse his canon 
> behaviour, the less redemption he needs.>

Okay, I must jump in here.  I have not personally been making excuses 
for Draco, nor do I think his behavior to this point has been 
excusable.  However, I do think he definitely has it in him to shed at 
least some of his nasty ways.  Maybe I can convince some of you by 
using my own students as an example.

As many of you know, I teach in a high school for kids who weren't 
successful in other high schools.  My school is located in the South 
Bronx and most of my students have major problems.  Many of them have 
been to jail for gang-related offenses or even for beating up teachers 
at previous schools.  These are the very kids society loves to write 
off as hopeless.  How do they do at my school?  Some of them do very 
well.  One of my best students was a gang member who did time in jail; 
today he is getting ready to graduate in June and attend college 
upstate in September, as he has already been accepted.  He is a sweet, 
funny kid who writes love poems in his spare time.  There are quite a 
few examples just like this one I could list.  

Most of my students are 18 years old.  At this point in the series, 
Draco is only 14.  Do we really believe that Draco's path is set in 
stone at that age?  I cannot accept that.  I've seen too many of my 
own students get themselves together, get jobs and graduate after 
coming to school high, talking back constantly and not earning credit 
when they first arrived at our school.  I don't think Draco has even 
one iota of the nerve my students have out in the street and frankly, 
I can't see him getting involved with some of the things I know the 
DEs have to do.  Draco to me is more the kind of person who wants to 
let others do the work for him, hence his connection with Crabbe and 
Goyle.  When the day comes for Draco to get his hands dirty or for him 
to see before him the possible consequences of his actions, I believe 
he will think twice.  If the Bloods came to Hogwarts, Draco would 
*not* be someone they'd recruit; the DEs, IMO, would only want him 
because his father has been an active member.  They would not be 
pleased with his performance.

I also have a student who, much like Draco, has a big mouth.  He is an 
adorable looking, usually charming kid who can't sit still and seems 
to take any opportunity to start problems with kids he perceives as 
weak.  Just a few weeks ago, another boy got up out of his seat with 
his hands up, ready to fight the boy with the big mouth.  The big 
mouth boy laughed, not knowing what to do.  That situation reminded me 
of Draco and Hermione, when she slapped him and then drew out her wand 
in PoA.  When push came to shove, Hermione was stronger, Draco knew 
that, and he backed down.  This convinces me even more that he will 
not be able to handle the dirty deeds expected of him if he follows in 
his father's footsteps.

We have discussed many times that Draco may also change his mind about 
the way he was raised when he sees his father in a more unfavorable 
light (perhaps bowing to Voldemort or *gasp* apologizing).  Draco was 
terrified in SS when he was in the Forbidden Forest; can you imagine 
how he'd react to a visit to Azkaban (ah, what a class trip that would 
be)?  Draco may not lay down his wand and say "I'll be a good boy from 
now on and I sure love Muggles!", but I have a clear image of him 
somehow turning away from some of the things he thought were true.  
Redemption does not mean his heart will suddenly grow in size like the 
Grinch, but it might mean he'll want to save his own tuches when push 
comes to shove.

--jenny from ravenc




From pennylin at swbell.net  Sat Apr 20 16:50:19 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:50:19 -0500
Subject: Some SHIP comments & Draco's Potential for Redemption
References: <a9k7pg+f4bd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002401c1e88b$74ad57e0$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 38006

Hi all --

Mercia wrote --

<<<But I do think JKR is pointing us towards the possiblity of relationship between Ron and Hermione, almost precisely because they are both so blind to it for much of GoF while it is becoming increasingly clear to the reader 
that they are interested in each other. In other words this isn't a 
crush and indeed both may go through crushes and flirtations with 
other people before they seriously waken up to the nature of their 
feelings for each other. In one interview JKR did confirm this by 
saying that there was something going on between Ron and Hermione but 
Ron, typical boy, didn't know it yet.>>>>>

Actually, since we had a *long & tortured* debate about the meaning of the word "between" in a previous Shipping war on HP4GU, I thought I'd just point out that when I looked at the *actual* wording of the chat question & answer at some point during the debate, I determined that JKR doesn't use the word "between" *at all* in her response and she doesn't mention Hermione at all.  This suggests it is at least possible that it is a one-sided situation, with Ron crushing on Hermione who doesn't return his feelings.  That's my interpretation of the situation and the chat response below does nothing to alter my opinion.  

****************************
Q: Is it just me, or was something going on between Ron and Hermione during the last half of GOF? I love your books, btw, and two of them I've read stright through cover to cover in under 24 hours.
jkrowling_bn: well done on the reading speed!
jkrowling_bn: yes, something's 'going on'...
jkrowling_bn: but Ron doesn't realise it yet...
jkrowling_bn: typical boy

********************

Jo serenadust wrote:

<<<<I've read all the posts exploring the possiblity of Draco's 
redemtion, and am utterly unconvinced my any of them.  His character 
has been consistent from the first moment we meet him, and has 
steadily gotten more malignant.  By the time the kids are on the 
train in GoF, he is probably 15 (or nearly so), and has clearly 
chosen his path.  I agree with lucky kari that he has crossed an 
important line, and would not find it believable or likely that he 
would change his position after this.  Like it or not, most people's 
basic characters are fairly well fixed by this age.>>>>

Well, others have commented on this already, but I'll just say that I would find it terribly disappointing if a series that is all about *choices* portrays a *child* who is irredeemably evil from the age of 11 onward.  He's only 14 in GoF.  Severus Snape apparently was able to make a life-altering change at a much older age, so why not Draco?  Why is it not believable that an author who uses a theme of free choice so readily would set it up so that a character, once seemingly on a set path but then later exposed to the true nature of evil and its implications, might make different choices on his road toward maturity & adulthood?  I suspect Draco is just following the party line (his parents or at least Lucius).  Once he's actually put into a position of seeing the real-life consequences, he *might* make a different choice.  I also don't buy that everyone's basic character is fixed by the age of 14.  It's my experience that most people do a tremendous amount of changing & growing after they leave home for the first time -- generally college or first job or whatever, ages 18-29 are times of huge change for many people.  So, I remain optimistic that Draco *can* be redeemed.  The possibility is there, but of course, it's anyone's guess as to where JKR might be going for certain.

Penny    



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From megalynn44 at hotmail.com  Sat Apr 20 15:36:05 2002
From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Meghan Stancil)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:36:05 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Have Slytherins always been hated?
Message-ID: <F125gyr7owqq1bpzCF000002765@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38007



> >So anyways to sum up, maybe the Slytherins weren't hated when the
> >Marauders were in school. Maybe that is a fairly recent development.
>
> >Megs
>
>I'm not entirely sure, but I think Voldemort was rising in power when the 
>Marauders were in school.  There's a timeline of the entire HP universe 
>that's been compiled from dates mentioned in the books, and ages mentioned 
>by JKR in interviews

>It indicates that the Marauders were probably in school in the 1970s and 
>that's around the time Voldemort began to rise in power. It makes it a 
>tough call as to any prejudices existing during their schooling though near 
>the end I'd have to say that there were probably a lot.
>
>---
>--Hana
>"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high
>and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."  Michelangelo

BUt that's my point, at that time he was merely rising to power. NO one knew 
at that time that when it was all said and done the Slytherins would be the 
majority to go over to the Dark Arts. As I originally said, I really do 
think the hatred towards the Slytherins is one part Harry's POV and the 
other part BACKLASH after Voldy's reign.

Megs


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.





From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Sat Apr 20 17:51:19 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:51:19 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some SHIP comments & Draco's Potential for Redemption
Message-ID: <6f.263fb71c.29f30497@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38008

In a message dated 4/20/2002 12:51:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
pennylin at swbell.net writes:

<< Well, others have commented on this already, but I'll just say that I 
would find it terribly disappointing if a series that is all about *choices* 
portrays a *child* who is irredeemably evil from the age of 11 onward.  He's 
only 14 in GoF.  Severus Snape apparently was able to make a life-altering 
change at a much older age, so why not Draco?  Why is it not believable that 
an author who uses a theme of free choice so readily would set it up so that 
a character, once seemingly on a set path but then later exposed to the true 
nature of evil and its implications, might make different choices on his road 
toward maturity & adulthood?  I suspect Draco is just following the party 
line (his parents or at least Lucius).  Once he's actually put into a 
position of seeing the real-life consequences, he *might* make a different 
choice.  I also don't buy that everyone's basic character is fixed by the age 
of 14.  It's my experience that most people do a tremendous amount of 
changing & growing after they leave home for the first time -- generally 
college or first job or whatever, ages 18-29 are times of huge change for 
many people.  So, I remain optimistic that Draco *can* be redeemed.  The 
possibility is there, but of course, it's anyone's guess as to where JKR 
might be going for certain. >>

           Exactly! I believe 100% that in the HP books, where *choices* is 
such a big deal, that a 14 year old's personality would not be already set in 
stone, so to speak. And I think that one of the best argument points is the 
change over of Snape. As you said, he was much older than 14 when he made the 
huge decision to change sides, and fight against evil. I still have hope for 
Draco yet.
*Chelsea*



From Zarleycat at aol.com  Sat Apr 20 19:15:40 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:15:40 -0000
Subject: Father - figures  (Was: Snape the Father)
In-Reply-To: <a9qgce+52a0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9seos+o4qt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38009

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "archgarchus" <Kimstr at h...> wrote:
> Dear Everyone,
> 
>   Nice discussion we got here. Let me first say that I appreciate 
> Amanda's well-researched archive hunt for Father/Snape references. 
> 
>  Yes, Snape is the negative father. He's the one who yells at you 
for 
> getting an F, for coming in late, etc... Yet, with time you come to 
> understand that as much as you may have resented it, this "father" 
> was acting only in your own interest. That is part of the 
maturation 
> process and it is why I believe that it is only in Book 7 (the 
> concluding book, the most mature that we will ever see Harry) that 
> Harry will understand that Snape is not the heartless wonder he 
> appears to be. In fact, the story will be even more poignant when 
> Snape's true motivations will be revealed. Just because a father 
> figure is not "Ward Cleaver" does not mean that he is not a father 
> figure.
> 

I wonder if JKR hasn't set up various adult males to exhibit 
differenct aspects of the father-figure simply as a way to underline 
what Harry is missing in his life.  There is no one male, at this 
point in the series, that combines all or many of the aspects that a 
father can have. Which, of course, let's us discuss forever what 
personality traits of which character make him a father-figure for 
Harry.

Of course we have no way of knowing if James would have been a good, 
all-around dad - one who is loving and kind, yet who still provides 
discipline and order, and expects his kid will listen to him and not 
grow up into some sort of spoiled brat.  And since Harry apparently
knows so little about his parents, his view of James at this point 
strikes me as completely positive and thus, somewhat unrealistic.  He 
doesn't associate James with any sort of bad or questionable 
behavior - leaving out whatever negative comments Snape makes about 
James in Harry's hearing, but Harry tends to discount those.

It's possible that Harry has never had the thought that, had his 
parents lived, he would have had disagreements and arguments with 
them, like most kids do as they mature.  The adult males that he has 
the most serious disagreements with tend to be those men he dislikes, 
like Uncle Vernon and Snape. Since Harry does not have any warm and 
fuzzy feelings for these people, he's less likely to see that 
anything they say or do is for his own benefit.

Harry does react like a typical kid when Sirius takes him to task in 
GoF for walking off into the forest with Krum and demands that Harry 
promise not to do anything like that again.  "Who's he to lecture me 
about being out-of-bounds...after all the stuff he did at school?"
But, Harry is only mildy miffed at this; whereas had Snape said the 
same thing to him, Harry would have been very annoyed.  

Marianne












From kellybroughton at netscape.net  Sat Apr 20 21:42:06 2002
From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:42:06 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco and redemption potential
Message-ID: <1F463079.6BC2C36F.B13B89B9@netscape.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38010


>
>"'You've picked the losing side, Potter!  Too late now,
>Potter! [Ron and Hermione will] be the first to go, now the
>Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well -
>second - Diggory was the f -`" (GoF, US, 729).
>

Just a question: am I the only one that's appalled by Draco's density? For some reason, it just doesn't register with Draco that Harry "picked the losing side" bc Voldemort killed Harry's parents (among other things) and tried to kill Harry! WHY doesn't he understand this? Is he really *that* stupid?

-kel



__________________________________________________________________
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 foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Apr 20 22:04:21 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:04:21 -0000
Subject: Draco's Density was Re: Draco and redemption potential
In-Reply-To: <1F463079.6BC2C36F.B13B89B9@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <a9sol5+7fcb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38011

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., kellybroughton at n... wrote:

> Just a question: am I the only one that's appalled by Draco's 
density? For some reason, it just doesn't register with Draco that 
Harry "picked the losing side" bc Voldemort killed Harry's parents 
(among other things) and tried to kill Harry! WHY doesn't he 
understand this? Is he really *that* stupid?
> 
> -

Perhaps Draco believes, as Hagrid seems to, that the Potters 
might have been spared if they had been willing to go over to 
Voldemort's side.

"Suppose the myst'ry is why You-Know-Who never tried to get 
'em on his side before...probably knew they were too close to 
Dumbledore ter want anythin' ter do with the Dark Side.

"Maybe he thought he could persuade 'em..."
PS/SS ch. 4

 Draco isn't dense for not realizing that Voldemort had some 
special reason to want Harry  dead, since it's obviously a Great 
Big Secret, and Voldemort's usual procedure appears to be "kill 
the spare".

Pippin




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sat Apr 20 22:31:21 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:31:21 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some SHIP comments
In-Reply-To: <002401c1e88b$74ad57e0$bd26fea9@default>
References: <a9k7pg+f4bd@eGroups.com> <002401c1e88b$74ad57e0$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <133184799745.20020420153121@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38012



Hi,

Saturday, April 20, 2002, 9:50:19 AM, Penny wrote:

> This suggests it is at least possible that it
> is a one-sided situation, with Ron crushing on Hermione who doesn't
> return his feelings.  That's my interpretation of the situation and the
> chat response below does nothing to alter my opinion.  

I'm not set on any ships and had my doubts about Hermione
liking Ron, but one little scene at the end of GoF made me
see the possibility of Hermione returning Ron's feelings.

It's when Krum says good-bye to H, H, and R, when Ron
finally overcomes his ... (can't think of the right word
here, dislike is not quite right, but being German I can't
come up with anything better atm) and asks for Krum's
autograph.

Here's the part from GoF:
*****************
 He
held out his hand as Fleur had done, shook Harry's hand, and then
Ron's. Ron looked as though he was suffering some sort of painful
internal struggle.
    Krum had already started walking away when Ron burst out,
"Can I have your autograph?"

    Hermione turned away, smiling at the horseless carriages that
were now trundling toward them up the drive, as Krum, looking
surprised but gratified, signed a fragment of parchment for Ron.
*******************

While this is no proof of anything, it made *me* think that
Hermione might not be dead set against more than friendship
with Ron.

He still needs to do a lot of growing up, but then, so does
Hermione, who is *using* the "Krum-thing" in my opinion.
Not sure, what her intentions are, exactly.

I don't mind if none of the ships that are speculated about
ever happen, though <g>.

It's not what's important to me in the HP universe.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Sat Apr 20 22:41:57 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:41:57 -0000
Subject: Father - figures  (Was: Snape the Father)
In-Reply-To: <a9seos+o4qt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9sqrl+pr2t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38013

Marianne wrote:

"Harry does react like a typical kid when Sirius takes him to task 
in GoF for walking off into the forest with Krum and demands that 
Harry promise not to do anything like that again. "Who's he to 
lecture me about being out-of-bounds...after all the stuff he did at 
school?" But, Harry is only mildy miffed at this; whereas had 
Snape said the same thing to him, Harry would have been very 
annoyed."

I noticed a similar thing in PoA, when Snape was yelling at Harry 
for his head being seen at Hogsmeade.  Everything Snape said 
was true, that folks were going out of their way to protect him, yet 
he is so arrogant that he risks going there anyway.  When Snape 
said it to him, he reacted defensively with anger, but then when 
Lupin said basically the same thing to him (in a different way), he 
was receptive to it and even felt guilty.   Snape just isn't willing to 
coddle Harry and his ego when pointing out his bad judgement.

Rita 






From dicentra at xmission.com  Sat Apr 20 23:58:19 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:58:19 -0000
Subject: Harry, Dumbledore, Fawkes & Flamel / Crouch Jr.
Message-ID: <a9svar+h2jk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38014

> cmf_usc wrote:
> >so I was wondering if ya'll had ideas about what types of pets 
>might be
> particularly useful to Harry?
> 
> I haven't done an achive search on this *sorry*, but when I heard 
the third
> book was to be called 'The Order of the Pheonix' it occured to me 
that Harry
> may be bestowed AD's pheonix, Fawkes - maybe after AD's death. No I 
don't
> have any specific cannon for this, but throughout GoF we are drawn 
to the
> fact that AD is looking old and tired, and Fawkes appears to have 
formed an
> attachment to Harry - lands on his lap in AD's office afer the 
third task.
> 
> And just an additional thought, maybe AD, was in fact being kept 
alive by
> the same elixior as Flamel from the philosopher's stone, and he is 
in fact
> running low on his stock pile of the life prolonging substance.
> 
> 
> Also there was a previous discussion about Crouch Jr.
> 
> finwitch wrote:
> 
> >As I read it, I was totally convinced Jr. did *not* do it. That he
> >was just another innocent sent to Azkaban.
> 
> There is a problem with this idea that Crouch Jr. was innocent 
before the
> trial, and it was only his treatment that sent him over to the dark 
side.
> 
> The problem is that the DEs leave a space for the 'faithful' 
servant in the
> circle after LV rebirth (assuming this is refering to Crouch Jr.). 
If Crouch
> Jr. did not go over to the dark side until after LV's downfall then 
there
> would have been no opportunity for the DEs to know there was any 
need for an
> extra space.
> 

--Dicey Elf, in behalf of Karen Peirson, whose software is being 
naughty




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 21 01:06:03 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:06:03 -0000
Subject: Continuing Education: A Wizarding Option?
In-Reply-To: <1a6.10152d5.29f22efa@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9t39r+8hil@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38015

alexpie at a... wrote:
> In addition, aside from the DADA teachers, most of the teachers at 
> Hogwarts seem to have chosen teaching as a career (particularly 
McGonnagall). 
>  Surely when they graduated Hogwarts, they were not qualified as 
teachers at 
> seventeen!

I don't see any implication that McGonnagal went into teaching as a 
career to the exclusion of anything else - after all, although she'd 
have been the right age, she would have been there in Riddle's time...

Considering the almost-medieval attitudes prevalent at Hogwarts, I 
would expect all teachers to have learnt their stuff from "the 
university of life", either as Aurors (Moody), "adventurers" 
(Lockhart), or looking after the grounds and beast at Hogwarts 
(Hagrid). After completing their education, some would have gone on 
to be apprentices in a chosen field, and some would have chosen to 
come back to teach the next generation. 

Some might perhaps have decided to dedicate their lives to an 
academic discipline (such a history) and a natural extension of that 
would be to teach, so perhaps in that way, they choose a career, but 
all the practical subjects will be taught by people who have actually 
had to call on talents in their respective fields in the real world.

Tangentially, I repeat my usual rant about students "graduating" 
Hogwarts. This causes great pain to my British sensibilities and 
shows a major lack of understanding of the UK education system as it 
exists in the real world, and Hogwarts as it's been depicted. 
Pupils "leave school" having sat their final exams, they do NOT 
graduate! There is nothing to "graduate", there are only exams to be 
sat (each one individually and in isolation from others), which are 
either passed or failed. 

If anything in a fanfic is likely to turn me off, it's the use of 
the "g" word and I know that most British readers feel exactly the 
same way. I repeat my exhortation for fanfic authors to take note of 
this.

-- 
GulPlum aka Richard




From Zarleycat at aol.com  Sun Apr 21 02:01:36 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:01:36 -0000
Subject: Father - figures  (Was: Snape the Father)
In-Reply-To: <a9sqrl+pr2t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9t6i0+g5bh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38016

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ritadear2" <ritadarling at i...> wrote:

> Marianne wrote:
> 
> "Harry does react like a typical kid when Sirius takes him to task 
> in GoF for walking off into the forest with Krum and demands that 
> Harry promise not to do anything like that again. "Who's he to 
> lecture me about being out-of-bounds...after all the stuff he did 
at 
> school?" But, Harry is only mildy miffed at this; whereas had 
> Snape said the same thing to him, Harry would have been very 
> annoyed."
> 
> I noticed a similar thing in PoA, when Snape was yelling at Harry 
> for his head being seen at Hogsmeade.  Everything Snape said 
> was true, that folks were going out of their way to protect him, 
yet 
> he is so arrogant that he risks going there anyway.  When Snape 
> said it to him, he reacted defensively with anger, but then when 
> Lupin said basically the same thing to him (in a different way), he 
> was receptive to it and even felt guilty.   Snape just isn't 
willing to 
> coddle Harry and his ego when pointing out his bad judgement.

I agree to the idea that Snape cuts to the chase with Harry and gives 
him the message he wants Harry to hear, and does not care about the 
manner in which the message is delivered.  

I'm not sure whether Rita is implying that Remus and Sirius are 
coddling Harry when pointing out his bad judgment.  I don't think 
either of them do that.  Sirius is certainly emphatic about not 
wanting Harry to wander out-of-bounds in GoF.  And Harry definitely 
gets the message when Remus chastises him over the use of the Map in 
PoA - 
' "A poor way to repay them - gambling their sacrifice for a bag of 
magic tricks." He walked away, leaving Harry feeling worse by far than
he had at any point in Snape's office.'

Harry is willing to admit, at least to himself, that he may be wrong 
in his actions or judgment, and Remus/Sirius may be right. Snape may 
very well be sending the same message to Harry, but he's sending it 
in a way that Harry can't or won't receive it.  

Part of being an effective father-figure is the ability to guide 
someone when they are following the wrong path.  Or to try to correct 
improper or dangerous behavior.  Or simpy to let a child know that 
their actions are wrong and that they have not behaved in the way 
that's expected of them.  However, that message has to be delivered 
effectively in order for the child to learn the lesson.  Harry's 
problen is that he is willing to be guided by Remus and Sirius, but 
they are not present day-to-day.  Snape is there, but Harry still 
sees him as more adversary than ally.


Marianne





From jmmears at prodigy.net  Sun Apr 21 04:38:46 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 04:38:46 -0000
Subject: Some SHIP comments & Draco's Potential for Redemption
In-Reply-To: <002401c1e88b$74ad57e0$bd26fea9@default>
Message-ID: <a9tfom+293c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38017

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:

> Jo serenadust wrote:
> 
> <<<<I've read all the posts exploring the possiblity of Draco's 
> redemtion, and am utterly unconvinced my any of them.  His 
character 
> has been consistent from the first moment we meet him, and has 
> steadily gotten more malignant.  By the time the kids are on the 
> train in GoF, he is probably 15 (or nearly so), and has clearly 
> chosen his path.  I agree with lucky kari that he has crossed an 
> important line, and would not find it believable or likely that he 
> would change his position after this.  Like it or not, most 
people's 
> basic characters are fairly well fixed by this age.>>>>
> 
> Well, others have commented on this already, but I'll just say 
that I would find it terribly disappointing if a series that is all 
about *choices* portrays a *child* who is irredeemably evil from the 
age of 11 onward.  He's only 14 in GoF.  Severus Snape apparently 
was able to make a life-altering change at a much older age, so why 
not Draco?  Why is it not believable that an author who uses a theme 
of free choice so readily would set it up so that a character, once 
seemingly on a set path but then later exposed to the true nature of 
evil and its implications, might make different choices on his road 
toward maturity & adulthood?  I suspect Draco is just following the 
party line (his parents or at least Lucius).  Once he's actually put 
into a position of seeing the real-life consequences, he *might* 
make a different choice.  I also don't buy that everyone's basic 
character is fixed by the age of 14.  It's my experience that most 
people do a tremendous amount of changing & growing after they leave 
home for the first time -- generally college or first job or 
whatever, ages 18-29 are times of huge change for many people.  So, 
I remain optimistic that Draco *can* be redeemed.  The possibility 
is there, but of course, it's anyone's guess as to where JKR might 
be going for certain.

I haven't said in my post that it is *impossible for Draco* to be 
redeemed; only that there isn't one shred of canon evidence to 
support the possibility. I also never said that everyone's basic 
character is fixed by the age of 14; I said *most* people's 
characters are. I agree that the series is all about choices, and 
Draco Malfoy has been entirely consistant in making the most 
negative ones.  He's not "irredeemably* evil from age 11; he's 
making decisions to go in that direction every step of the way.  

Of course, Snape *did* make a life-altering change at a much older 
age, but I don't see anything in any of the books indicating that 
Snape was anything like Malfoy at an early age (apart from being in 
Slythern and hating James & co.).  Draco is the spoiled "golden boy" 
of his family who always gets what he wants (except when it comes to 
defeating HRH).  Snape gives every indication that he had a pretty 
rough time of it at school and in life in general as a kid.  You can 
reasonably speculate that this played a part in his choice to become 
a death eater, and in his general bitterness toward life.  However, 
there had to be a fundamental shred of honor or decency somewhere in 
him which helped him to make the really hard choice to put himself 
at risk, and change sides in the conflict with Voldemort.

In contrast, Malfoy shows absolutely no sign of honor or character, 
even in dealing with his own allies.  He shows almost as much 
contempt for his best friends, Crabbe & Goyle, as he does for his 
enemies.  In fact, I'd argue that he has more respect for HRH than 
he has for C&G. It takes true courage to do what's right instead of 
what's easy;  Malfoy has never shown the slightest suggestion of 
courage (if I've missed an example of his displaying any real 
courage, please point it out).

It's true (as Penny points out) that people do a huge amount of 
growing and changing through their early adulthood, as anyone who 
has attended their 20 year high school reunion can confirm.  Life 
has a way of knocking the rough edges off of people by that time, 
and many who were jerks as teens, actually are quite nice by their 
late thirties.  However, Draco's behavior goes way beyond teenage 
jerkiness.  There's simply nothing in his life that will force him 
to completely overhaul his personality.  He's very happy with 
himself as it is.  As Dr. Phil says, "it's working for him"

My point was not that *no one ever reforms* if they were nasty as 
kids.  The point I was trying to make was that I believe the author 
is trying to illustrate for us *how* a truly evil person develops.
I find it depressing that many people entertain the possibiltiy that 
characters such as Ron, Percy, the twins, and even Neville for 
heavens sake, will go over to Voldemorts side, but still think that  
Malfoy is a candidate for redemption.  Rowling could conceivably 
pull some huge plot twist out of her hat, but she usually lays 
*some* ground work for it in advance.  I've searched through the 
canon, but I sure don't see any signs of it.

Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to clarify my earlier remarks.

Jo Serenadust, somewhat depressed to again disagree with Penny, 
whose posts I really enjoy anyway




From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Sun Apr 21 10:58:05 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:58:05 -0000
Subject: Only Children/ Likeable Slytherins?
In-Reply-To: <OPPGDPGDOMPEFCAA@mailcity.com>
Message-ID: <a9u5vu+ar4o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38018

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hana" <gohana_chan02 at l...> wrote:
> >The Sorting Hat itself doesn't give much away, only telling us of 
>their ambition, although the first Sorting Hat song does make the 
>chilling assertion that they will use any means to achieve their 
>ends.
> >
> >Eloise
> 
> I find this statement interesting.  The part about ambition isn't a 
problem -- after all, just because someone is ambitious, doesn't mean 
they're evil.  Wanting to eliminate evil threats, or stop wars, or 
become the best wizard/witch are all ambitions that might be 
considered noble.
> 
> The part about the ends justifying the means being "chilling" is 
really interesting.  You're making it sound very evil (which, granted 
it can be) but isn't that what Harry and friends do in every single 
book?  In PS/SS they sneak out after hours, they enter the forbidden 
corridor, they snoop for information when told not to (many times), 
they break past the traps to get to the stone, they trick Hagrid into 
giving information away etc.  The end result -- keeping the stone 
from Voldemort -- is very noble but they break a lot of rules to do 
so, not caring about the means as long as Voldemort is stopped. 
> 
> There are a lot of other examples -- the polyjuice potion and all 
the stolen ingredients, Ron and Harry using the car to get to 
Hogwarts, helping Norbert escape, cheating by cooperating to find out 
how to do the tasks in GoF -- the list goes on and on.  If those 
aren't examples of the ends justifying the means I don't know what 
are.  
> 

Well, some ends justify some means, but to use *any* means to achieve 
your end? That *is* chilling (I'm relying on the above quote, I 
haven't the books here with me). 

Besides, the things you enumerate are really very mild rule breaking 
on H R& R part. The point about the Slytherins is, I think, that they 
are willing to do things that are clearly not moral in order to 
achieve their goals. Any person might sometimes ventures into morally 
grey areas, especially when trying to achieve an important goal, but 
the Slytherins are depicted as people who easily go into morally 
black (=obviously wrong) areas when it comes to fulfilling an 
ambition. 


Naama
taking this opportunity to agree with Jo about Draco, nasty little 
brute that he is!







From heidit at netbox.com  Sun Apr 21 12:16:31 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 08:16:31 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Only Children/ Likeable Slytherins?
Message-ID: <13d.d1e1c1a.29f4079f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38020

: 
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hana" <gohana_chan02 at l...> wrote:
> >>The Sorting Hat itself doesn't give much away, only telling us of 
> >their ambition, although the first Sorting Hat song does make the 
> >chilling assertion that they will use any means to achieve their 
> >ends.
> >>
> 

Penny wrote

> >The part about the ends justifying the means being "chilling" is 
> really interesting.  You're making it sound very evil (which, granted 
> it can be) but isn't that what Harry and friends do in every single 
> book?  In PS/SS they sneak out after hours, they enter the forbidden 
> corridor, they snoop for information when told not to (many times), 
> they break past the traps to get to the stone, they trick Hagrid into 
> giving information away etc.  The end result -- keeping the stone 
> from Voldemort -- is very noble but they break a lot of rules to do 
> so, not caring about the means as long as Voldemort is stopped. 
> >
> >There are a lot of other examples -- the polyjuice potion and all 
> the stolen ingredients, Ron and Harry using the car to get to 
> Hogwarts, helping Norbert escape, cheating by cooperating to find out 
> how to do the tasks in GoF -- the list goes on and on.  If those 
> aren't examples of the ends justifying the means I don't know what 
> are.  
> >
> 



> Well, some ends justify some means, but to use *any* means to achieve 
> your end? That *is* chilling (I'm relying on the above quote, I 
> haven't the books here with me). 
> 

Playing devil's advocate here, I have to make a few points about the above 
argument:
1. That was only in the Sorting Hat's song first year - that concept wasn't 
in the song during their 4th year, although ambition was mentioned then. 
Would a 1st year who only hears that year's song think "Yes! I am ambitious! 
And I want to be with other ambitious people! Please! Slytherin! I'm not as 
clever as the ravenclaws or as brave as tehe Gryffindors or as hard working 
as the Hufflepuffs.I just want to be a best-selling romance novelist! Yes, I 
have ambition! Put me in Slytherin!" And if the Sorting Hat did the same 
thing it had done for Harry, would some sweet yet ambitious kid end up in 
Slytherin as a fluke? And what would happen to him once he did? The any means 
to achieve their ends thing would be completely unknown to them when they 
made their "wish", and the reign of Voldemort and Darkness might seem so 
remote as to not be a factor in the thinking about the houses. Even Hermione, 
when discussing houses in Book 1, never says, "And I wouldn't want to be in 
Slytherin - they're all dark and evil!" which might imply that even in 1991, 
what happened 10 years before is remote enough to not be an issue. Draco says 
he wants to be in Slytherin because all his family had been, not because 
they're all dark and evil. 

2. Yes, using any means to achieve one's ends could be a chilling concept; 
again, it depends on how you define it. And there are all sorts of wonderful 
goals in this world that have terrible potential pre-steps to achieving them. 
You want to cure all types of cancer? Great goal! But what if the main 
ingredient of the cure is fresh water - and you have to deplete the planet's 
stockpile to do it.  What if your goal is destroying an evil terrorist and 
his henchmen? Great goal! But what if you have to drop an atomic bomb on a 
city of one hundred thousand innocent people to do it? WHat if your goal is 
feeding all the hungry in the world? Great goal! But what if you have to feed 
them the dead bodies of other people to do it?

Ewww. 

But what if you want to get an illegal dragon off school propery? Great goal! 
But you have to sneak out of your down afterhours to do it. How many people 
on this list would think you evil? Or that you're using any means to achieve 
your ends? Quite.
But what if you want to enforce school rules? Great goal! But you have to 
sneak out of your dorm afterhours to do it. Not a problem! (see above) 
Unless, of course, you're in Slytherin, in which case it seems to be deemed a 
greater level of rulebreaking than the sneaking out that Harry did to get to 
the mirror of erised, or to send Norbert away, or to stop Snape from getting 
the stone (I know they didn't actually, but that's what they thought they 
were sneaking out to do).

I guess on an empirical level, taking someone else's Remembrall to stick it 
(unbroken!) up a tree is worse than stealing potions supplies from a 
professor so you can make a potion so you can sneak into someone else's dorm 
room so you can learn if he's the Heir of Slytherin. And it's possible that 
reporting a teacher to a staff member for being involved in a plot to steal a 
valuable stone is not as bad as trying to get a teacher fired from his 
position for incompetence. And kicking a cat is certainly not as bad as 
trying to get a Hippogryff decapitated, no matter what that Hippogryff did to 
you. 

And knocking a classmate out isn't as bad as insulting him.

Oh, wait, um, no. I'm not so sure about that last one.  Given that the 
stunning was inadvertent, and caused because of the simultaneous set of 
spells rather than the individual spells themselves, I can't personally 
determine that one is worse than another. But that's just because I still 
believe that "Sticks & Stones" rhyme, and think that giving someone the 
Furnunculus curse because he insulted you isn't as practical as shoving him 
out the door and spell-locking it so he can't get back in. But that 
wouldn't've been half as dramatic as it was.  

> Besides, the things you enumerate are really very mild rule breaking 
> on H R& R part. The point about the Slytherins is, I think, that they 
> are willing to do things that are clearly not moral in order to 
> achieve their goals. Any person might sometimes ventures into morally 
> 
> grey areas, especially when trying to achieve an important goal, but 
> the Slytherins are depicted as people who easily go into morally 
> black (=obviously wrong) areas when it comes to fulfilling

Okay, I clearly missed this part among the students who are currently there. 
Can you show me some scenes in canon which show Slytherins doing things (i.e. 
not just *saying* things)  in which they're venturing into morally black 
areas? I guess possibly the scene where 4 of them dress as Dementors to freak 
Harry out, but they clearly knew they wouldn't be able to have the power to 
suck out his happy thoughts and make him see horrible things, and they 
already knew that Dumbledore would be able to stop him if he fell.  And I 
certainly don't think that Dumbledore considered some of the things that 
H-R-H do as mild rulebreaking - look at his reaction when Ron and Harry flew 
to school! 

All this is meant to say is that I don't think that we can look at Slytherins 
as "all black" (no reference to the NZ team here) without seeing a little 
more of the current crop of students. 

heidi


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From elfundeb at aol.com  Sun Apr 21 12:54:15 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 08:54:15 EDT
Subject: The Sorting Hat, Fawkes and the Governors of Hogwarts
Message-ID: <8c.1728eda6.29f41077@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38021

AV said on Sorting:

> I'm wondering whether or not all or almost all Hogwarts 
> kids actually negotiate with the Sorting Hat to choose their House. 
> Wasn't Dumbledore's "it is our choices that determine who we are" 
> speech made in this context? Maybe Padma and Parvati felt more of a 
> need/desire to develop independently of each other than Fred and 
> George did. Maybe Hermione figured she already had the hard work, 
> cleverness, and ambition stuff down cold and that her courage was 
> what she needed most to _develop_. Kids are often more self-aware 
> than adults give them credit for, and I can believe Dumbledore would 
> want to get them used to making important choices as early as 
> possible. But most kids at that age might opt for the familiarity of 
> whatever House their family's culture most leans toward (the Muggle-
> born kids would pick the one that most appealed in some other way); 
> if the Sorting happened at, say, 15, I bet hardly *anybody* would be 
> in the same House as their parents were. 
> 
I'm really not enamored of the idea that the Sorting Hat allows students to 
choose or negotiate their Houses, even though that's what the Hat seems to do 
with Harry.  It seems to me like an abdication of the responsibility that the 
Founders gave the Hat ("The Founders put some brains in me so I could choose 
instead . . . I've never yet been wrong").  Rather, my view is that the 
Sorting Hat, if it sees evidence that a student might have characteristics 
prized by more than one of the Founders, engages in a sort of Ignatian 
discernment process in which the Hat projects the outcome of each 
possibility.  (Thanks to Eloise for putting this idea in my head when she 
applied this analogy to Snape's decision to leave the DEs awhile back.)   I 
think it would be pretty easy for the Sorting Hat to tell that despite 
Harry's willingness to set aside the rules to achieve his objectives, he 
would have been miserable in Slytherin.  And that Hermione will develop into 
a more well-rounded person in a House that prizes her inner bravery rather 
than the academic goals she outwardly
projects.  Maybe Parvati had always relied on Padma to do the thinking and 
Padma relied on Parvati to do the talking; both would develop better if 
forced to rely on themselves.  As for families choosing the same House, Draco 
and Ron were both sorted very quickly (one second or less), but their parents 
clearly raised them with the values of their own Houses; neither seems suited 
for any other house.

But what else does the Sorting Hat do?  It seems to me I remember that JKR 
said once (though I can't find it in the interview archives here) that the 
Sorting Hat has a lot more powers we haven't seen yet.  We did get a glimpse 
of something else when Harry was able to pull Godric Gryffindor's sword out 
of the hat after Fawkes brought it to him.  The following comment from 
Eloise, a week or so ago, got me thinking about this:


>  I believe 
> that Dumbledore is aware of a pre-ordained plan that is working itself out, 
> a 
> plan whose bones cannot be changed (something on the level of the Deep 
> Magic), but the final outcome of which depends on the actions of the 
> participants.
> 
Might the Sorting Hat be the agent of this plan?  The Founders invested the 
hat with their collective wisdom (and, I'll bet, a good chunk of their 
formidable magical powers).  The Sorting Hat has seen into the mind of every 
student, and knows what each is capable of.  By choosing Houses for students, 
it has great influence over their development. I have this idea, albeit with 
no more canon support than what I've just listed, that the Sorting Hat is 
somehow omniscient and makes House selections in furtherance of some master 
plan, and that Dumbledore, while not fully aware of the specifics of the 
plan, trusts in the Sorting Hat's (or more specifically, the Founders') 
ability to engineer the best possible outcome. 

Ali's observation on Pettigrew fits this theory pretty well:

I keep wondering about Pettigrew and the Sorting. Let us suppose that 
he was a Gryffindor. Perhaps he has not yet shown any bravery 
(although I also think that cutting off your hand is brave - or 
foolhardy). However, the Sorting Hat could probably see inherent and 
as yet untapped seams of bravery. Perhaps this aspect of Pettigrew's 
character will eventually outshine any other characteristic. I guess 
I'm thinking of the sacrifice I believe he will eventually make to 
save Harry. This act of bravery would then be a compelling reason for 
him to be put in Gryffindor, even if for the first 35 years of his 
life, most wizards would only see a coward.

And on a slightly different topic, Karen Peirson said regarding Fawkes:


> > I haven't done an achive search on this *sorry*, but when I heard 
> the third
> > book was to be called 'The Order of the Pheonix' it occured to me 
> that Harry
> > may be bestowed AD's pheonix, Fawkes - maybe after AD's death. No I 
> don't
> > have any specific cannon for this, but throughout GoF we are drawn 
> to the
> > fact that AD is looking old and tired, and Fawkes appears to have 
> formed an
> > attachment to Harry - lands on his lap in AD's office afer the 
> third task.
> >
This is an interesting thought that has been mentioned a couple of times over 
the past week, though I thought Fawkes landed on Harry's lap in GoF because 
he was injured -- physically and mentally -- and needed healing.  Harry has 
an obvious connection to Fawkes through his wand, and certainly Fawkes could 
be very valuable to Harry, but I have another, inconsistent thought, related 
to my wild Sorting Hat idea, which is that Fawkes does not belong to 
Dumbledore personally and cannot be bequeathed.  My idea is that Fawkes 
belonged to the Founders of Hogwarts and that Dumbledore has custody of 
Fawkes in his capacity as Headmaster in the same way that Dumbledore has 
custody of the Sorting Hat.  Under this theory, Fawkes' role is as guardian 
of Hogwarts, its Headmaster and the Sorting Hat.  I don't really have much 
canon support, except that phoenixes are regenerative, so it's not 
unreasonable to think Fawkes is that old (yes, Guy Fawkes is a more recent 
historical event, but his name may be of more recent vintage, or maybe the 
founders had divination powers and chose the name based on future events), 
and it was Fawkes who delivered the Sorting Hat to Harry in CoS with Godric 
Gryffindor's sword inside (the counterargument here is that Dumbledore says 
that nothing but loyalty to him could have called Fawkes to Harry, but it 
could have been loyalty to Dumbledore as the real Headmaster of Hogwarts).  
The fact that Fawkes has been referred to as Dumbledore's bird, both by Harry 
and by the authorial voice (which, of course, reflects Harry's POV), may 
condemn any notion that Fawkes doesn't belong to Dumbledore directly; 
however, I don't believe Dumbledore himself ever states that Fawkes is his.

Well, that was just an idea of mine.  I certainly wouldn't object if Harry 
inherited Fawkes.

But the relationship of the Founders, the Sorting Hat, Fawkes and Dumbledore 
raises another question: the governors of Hogwarts.  Do they really have the 
power to choose the headmaster?  This doesn't seem consistent with the 
Founders' intent.  If the Founders invested the Sorting Hat with the power to 
place students in Houses, surely they would have set up a mechanism for the 
selection of an appropriate headmaster.  And the board of governors doesn't 
seem like an 11th century concept.  So I'm wondering here if the governers 
were not instituted by the Ministry of Magic at a later date to give the MOM 
some oversight responsibility over Hogwarts, which it perceived to be in its 
bailiwick.

Thoughts?  Ideas?  Or is this a Highly Biased and Selective reading of canon?

Debbie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From editor at texas.net  Sun Apr 21 14:20:24 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:20:24 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Father - figures  (Was: Snape the Father)
References: <a9t6i0+g5bh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004701c1e93f$ae737c20$947763d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38022

Marianne said

> Part of being an effective father-figure is the ability to guide
> someone when they are following the wrong path.  Or to try to correct
> improper or dangerous behavior.  Or simpy to let a child know that
> their actions are wrong and that they have not behaved in the way
> that's expected of them.  However, that message has to be delivered
> effectively in order for the child to learn the lesson.  Harry's
> problen is that he is willing to be guided by Remus and Sirius, but
> they are not present day-to-day.  Snape is there, but Harry still
> sees him as more adversary than ally.

Firstly, this sounds like you think Snape is *trying* to be an effective
father figure. I don't think he is. I think the idea that he could be
considered as such would horrify him, if it even occurred to him.

Second, nobody said he was an *effective* father figure. I said he was a
father figure. The aspect of fatherhood that I believe he's standing in for,
in Harry's psyche, is the aspect that is least effective anyway, even from
our own fathers--the "do what I say because I say so" father, the one who is
totalitarian, authoritarian, dictatorial, <fill in your own expletive from
your own teenage years>. This is the father who has the desire to protect a
child, and the authority to take steps to do so, but the complete inability
to connect with the child to communicate anything; thus the efforts
generally produce rebellion and estrangement.

There is an aspect of this negative father in all dads--nobody has failed to
be furious at their own at some point for some flavor of this--but what I
had pointed out earlier was that Harry has the luxury of not having to deal
with complex emotions attached to one man. He has a range of paternal
influences which each have different shadings of the role, and his reactions
to each are thus less complicated and probably stronger.

--Amanda






From j.wolf at sympatico.ca  Sun Apr 21 14:56:48 2002
From: j.wolf at sympatico.ca (~J. Wolf~)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:56:48 -0400
Subject: Draco's Density, ships, judgment and teaching...
References: <1019397386.4689.48620.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CC2D32F.5C2E0F14@sympatico.ca>

No: HPFGUIDX 38023

Hey all,

>    From: "pippin_999" <foxmoth at qnet.com>
>
> Perhaps Draco believes, as Hagrid seems to, that the Potters
> might have been spared if they had been willing to go over to
> Voldemort's side.

I woulnd't call Draco dense, really. Just casually ignorant.  He seems able to project a stanse of not knowing not caring, but I think he knows excatly what is going on. That, however, may be giving Draco entirely too much credit.

>    From: Susanne <siskiou at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: Some SHIP comments
>
> I'm not set on any ships and had my doubts about Hermione
> liking Ron, but one little scene at the end of GoF made me
> see the possibility of Hermione returning Ron's feelings.

I'm sure SOMETHING will happen, either between Harry and Ginny, Harry/Cho or Ron and Hermione.  They're all getting old enough now to date, etc, and bonds have been built with strong emotions.  It would only be natural for Ron and Hermione to gravitate towards each other.

>    From: "ritadear2" <ritadarling at ivillage.com>
>
> I noticed a similar thing in PoA, when Snape was yelling at Harry
> for his head being seen at Hogsmeade.  Everything Snape said
> was true, that folks were going out of their way to protect him, yet
> he is so arrogant that he risks going there anyway.  When Snape
> said it to him, he reacted defensively with anger, but then when
> Lupin said basically the same thing to him (in a different way), he
> was receptive to it and even felt guilty.   Snape just isn't willing to
> coddle Harry and his ego when pointing out his bad judgement.
>
> Rita

I don't know if it's arogance, or bad judgement.  I think it is simply a matter of Harry being a kid.  I mean, when you grow up in Harry's environment, there isn't a lot of time to act childish, like everyone should now and again to release tension.

>    From: "GulPlum" <plumeski at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Continuing Education: A Wizarding Option?
>
> I don't see any implication that McGonnagal went into teaching as a
> career to the exclusion of anything else - after all, although she'd
> have been the right age, she would have been there in Riddle's time...

I like to think that there's more to McGonnagal then meets the eye. What made her such a hard woman? What happened betwee attending Hogwarts, and teaching at Hogwarts? Know what I mean? We know virtually nothing about any of the teachers (which makes sense, really) so McGonnagal's reason for teaching
could be anyones guess.

> Considering the almost-medieval attitudes prevalent at Hogwarts, I
> would expect all teachers to have learnt their stuff from "the
> university of life", either as Aurors (Moody), "adventurers"
> (Lockhart), or looking after the grounds and beast at Hogwarts
> (Hagrid). After completing their education, some would have gone on
> to be apprentices in a chosen field, and some would have chosen to
> come back to teach the next generation.

Perhaps a lot of their status as Witches and Wisards has to do with life experience? There has been no mention of a university of any kind, just Hogwarts, and then you go do your thing. I find it a bit odd that there isn't a Wisarding univeristy (they have universities and colleges in Britan right?) but
then again, I'm not the author. :) But I wonder what their rules and regulations are for teachers at Hogwarts....seeing as every wisard and witch has been a student there, or some other school.


That's all for now, folks!!

Cheers,
Jamieson


--
~~'Writers are liars my dear, surely you know that by now?'~~ Neil Gaiman in Sandman: Dream County





From kpeirson at ntlworld.com  Sun Apr 21 16:41:30 2002
From: kpeirson at ntlworld.com (Karen Peirson)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:41:30 +0100
Subject: Harry, Dumbledore, Fawkes & Flamel/Crouch Jr
Message-ID: <001c01c1e953$63994130$7a0e69d5@karenslaptop>

No: HPFGUIDX 38024


cmf_usc wrote:
>so I was wondering if ya'll had ideas about what types of pets >might be particularly useful to Harry?

I haven't done an achive search on this *sorry*, but when I heard the third book was to be called 'The Order of the Pheonix' it occured to me that Harry may be bestowed AD's pheonix, Fawkes - maybe after AD's death. No I don't have any specific cannon for this, but throughout GoF we are drawn to the fact that AD is looking old and tired, and Fawkes appears to have formed an attachment to Harry - lands on his lap in AD's office afer the third task.

And just an additional thought, maybe AD, was in fact being kept alive by the same elixior as Flamel from the philosopher's stone, and he is in fact running low on his stock pile of the life prolonging substance.


Also there was a previous discussion about Crouch Jr.

finwitch wrote:

>As I read it, I was totally convinced Jr. did *not* do it. That he 
>was just another innocent sent to Azkaban. 

There is a problem with this idea that Crouch Jr. was innocent before the trial, and it was only his treatment that sent him over to the dark side. 

The problem is that the DEs leave a space for the 'faithful' servant in the circle after LV rebirth (assuming this is refering to Crouch Jr.). If Crouch Jr. did not go over to the dark side until after LV's downfall then there would have been no opportunity for the DEs to know there was any need for an extra space.


Hope this makes sense - be gentle with your relpies this is my first message after being a lurker for a short while.

Karen


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From draco382 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 21 14:55:15 2002
From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:55:15 -0000
Subject: Father - figures  (Was: Snape the Father)
In-Reply-To: <a9seos+o4qt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9ujsj+8vcb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38025

Marianne wrote:

< Of course we have no way of knowing if James would have been a 
good, 
< all-around dad - one who is loving and kind, yet who still provides 
< discipline and order, and expects his kid will listen to him and 
not grow up into some sort of spoiled brat.  And since Harry 
apparently
< knows so little about his parents, his view of James at this point  
<strikes me as completely positive and thus, somewhat unrealistic.  
He 
< doesn't associate James with any sort of bad or questionable 
< behavior - leaving out whatever negative comments Snape makes about 
< James in Harry's hearing, but Harry tends to discount those.
<


I just wanted to stick my head into this interesting discussion.  
There was one scene that stood out to me in particular: After the 
third task, Moody (the fake one) is questioning Harry, reveals his 
plot to send him to Voldemort, and is about to kill him.  Just then 
the door is broken down and there stands Dumbledore, McGonagal...and  
Snape.  Snape?!?!  What the...
Sure, that doesn't alone make him some kind of father figure, but 
he 
is one of the only characters that has consistantly been there for 
Harry from the beginning in one way or another.  These three 
characters (Dumbledoor, McGonagal, Snape) seem sort of like Harry's 
guardians in a way.  Even though they may not agree with his 
behavior 
at times (or may out-and-out hate his guts) they have been there to 
help him in their own ways.  Lupin and Black are also trustworthy, 
but I feel like their connection to Harry is purely b/c he is 
James's 
son.  They are kind of like his foster fathers (??)  May be Snape, 
Dumbledore and McGonagal know how important he is in the grand 
scheme 
of things (ie: Destroying Voldemort) and while they may not have  
vested interest in him as a "son", they are still interested in his 
wellfare.  Perhaps Snape could be his only true "guardian angel"  
type...
anyways, Hagrid makes a pretty good "mother" figure i'd say....  :-)  
 
 ~P
 






From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Sun Apr 21 18:51:13 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:51:13 EDT
Subject: Voldemort Recruiting Harry
Message-ID: <9.26d79087.29f46421@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38026

While reading my books again, and while looking through the mountains of 
fanfics on the net, I started to wonder whether Voldemort would actually try 
to recruit Harry as a Death Eater. Sure, V killed Harry's parents and tried 
to kill Harry himself, but if he believed Harry was strong enough and had 
enough anger in him, would V try to get him on his side? I'd picture the 
senario as V sending Harry a letter, or some sort of communication, teling 
him to meet with him...or else. I"d think that if Harry really was powerful, 
V would want him on his side, and not having to fight against him. Anyone 
else have any thoughts on this?
*Chelsea*



From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com  Sun Apr 21 20:02:54 2002
From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:02:54 -0000
Subject: Voldemort Recruiting Harry
In-Reply-To: <9.26d79087.29f46421@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9v5te+5bem@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38027

picture the 
> senario as V sending Harry a letter, or some sort of communication, 
teling 
> him to meet with him...or else. I"d think that if Harry really was 
powerful, 
> V would want him on his side, and not having to fight against him. 
Anyone 
> else have any thoughts on this?
> *Chelsea*


I don't think so because JKR said herself in a chat that Harry 
wouldn't be tempted towards the dark side, and also, we don't know 
the reasons why exactly Vold *wants* to kill Harry, but I think he 
just wants to get rid of him ASAP, to show off his powers that killed 
the "Famous Harry Potter." Lets just face it, Old Vold hates him. The 
end.

Rosie

http://magic-hogwarts.com




From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 21 21:02:23 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 21:02:23 -0000
Subject: Voldemort Recruiting Harry
In-Reply-To: <a9v5te+5bem@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9v9cv+j4ve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38028

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "flower_fairy12" <graceofmyheart at h...> 
wrote:
> I don't think so because JKR said herself in a chat that Harry 
> wouldn't be tempted towards the dark side, and also, we don't know 
> the reasons why exactly Vold *wants* to kill Harry, but I think he 
> just wants to get rid of him ASAP, to show off his powers that 
killed 
> the "Famous Harry Potter." Lets just face it, Old Vold hates him. 
The 
> end.

Yes, but Voldemort was dead-set on killing Harry when he was just a 
little baby. I think that's a very significant fact and one that will 
show its importance in one of the following books. In fact, it 
wouldn't take much to convince me that Harry was Voldemort's primary 
objective that night in Godric's Hollow, and not necessarily James.

We already know that we are going learn more, much more, about Lily 
in the next book. I think that Lily has some ancient heritage that 
combined with James' wizard background meant that Harry was destined 
from birth for very great things, incredible power and it was this 
that Voldemort was out to destroy that night.

Just a theory, though.

Zoe Hooch




From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Apr 22 00:05:56 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:05:56 -0000
Subject: 3 little things / father figures / Slytherin
Message-ID: <a9vk55+2lft@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38029

GulPlum wrote:

> I don't see any implication that McGonnagal went into teaching as
> a career to the exclusion of anything else - after all, although
> she'd have been the right age, she would have been there in 
> Riddle's time...

She would have been a STUDENT in Riddle's time.

Marianne wrote:

> "Who's he to lecture me about being out-of-bounds...after all the
> stuff he did at school?" But, Harry is only mildy miffed at this; 
> whereas had Snape said the same thing to him, Harry would have been
> very annoyed.  

But Harry COULDN'T have said the same about Snape, as he doesn't know 
of Snape breaking any rules as a student.

Elfun Deb wrote:

> Maybe Parvati had always relied on Padma to do the thinking and 
> Padma relied on Parvati to do the talking; both would develop
> better if forced to rely on themselves.

Why didn't the same happen to Fred and George?

Marianne wrote:

> The adult males that he has the most serious disagreements with
> tend to be those men he dislikes, like Uncle Vernon and Snape. 
> Since Harry does not have any warm and fuzzy feelings for these 
> people, he's less likely to see that anything they say or do is for
> his own benefit.

Amanda wrote:

> is the aspect that is least effective anyway, even from our own
> fathers--the "do what I say because I say so" father, the one who
> is totalitarian, authoritarian, dictatorial, <fill in your own 
> expletive from your own teenage years>. This is the father who has 
> the desire to protect a child, and the authority to take steps to
> do so, but the complete inability to connect with the child to 
> communicate anything; thus the efforts generally produce rebellion 
> and estrangement.

I don't share the faith, widelly expressed on this thread, that the 
negative father always has good *intentions* toward the child, much 
less that the child will always grow up to realise that the negative 
father had good *results*. Fathers are human beings, and, as such, 
they can be in a bad mood or even downright evil. Can physically or 
verbally beat up the kid just because they lost their temper because 
of having had a lousy day. Can be trying to defeat the child because 
of viewing the child as a rival. Can torture the child for sadistic 
pleasure. 

I don't think there's any canon evidence that Vernon has EVER done 
ANYTHING which he INTENDED to be for Harry's good. He took Harry 
along to the zoo because he thought leaving him at home would be more 
dangerous for himself, and bought him a lemon ice to avoid looking 
bad to the ice cream vendor. The mean things he says to Harry are 
just cruel, not intended to help Harry turn out well.

Snape HAS done things for Harry's good (countercursing Quirrell's 
effort to knock him off his broomstick for sure; beating him up for 
being "our new celebrity" maybe) but I feel sure that Snape has done 
things that were spiteful to Harry simply out of spite and NOT for 
Harry's own good. I am not convinced that Snape intended to teach 
Harry better judgment than to put himself at risk by sneaking out to 
Hogsmeade; I think Snape was simply relieving his own annoyance at 
Harry.

P Draco386 wrote:

> Just then the door is broken down and there stands Dumbledore, 
> McGonagal...and Snape. Snape?!?! What the... 

Dumbledore with his right-hand woman and left-hand man. McGonagall 
and Snape are Dumbledore's loyal assistants, and don't need to have 
any other relationship to Harry to explain why they protect him  
because Dumbledore said so. (Altho' McGonagall also has the 
relationship of being Harry's Head of House.)

ElFunDeb wrote:

> Might the Sorting Hat be the agent of this plan? The Founders 
> invested the hat with their collective wisdom (and, I'll bet, a
> good chunk of their formidable magical powers). 

I am reluctant to trust a plan that includes Salazar Slytherin's 
wisdom. The other Founders eventually threw him out...  

Heidi as Devil's Advocate wrote:

> And if the Sorting Hat did the same thing it had done for Harry, 
> would some sweet yet ambitious kid end up in Slytherin as a fluke? 
> And what would happen to him once he did? The any means to achieve
> their ends thing would be completely unknown to them when they 
> made their "wish",

Surely the Hat would converse with the child about it. The Hat, which 
can see everything in hiser head, would know that the child wasn't 
thinking of 'any means to achieve your ends' and ask 'helpful' 
questions like, Would you murder a celebrity to get publicity to help 
sales of your books?

> in which they're venturing into morally black areas? I guess 
> possibly the scene where 4 of them dress as Dementors to freak 
> Harry out, but they clearly knew they wouldn't be able to have the 
> power to suck out his happy thoughts and make him see horrible 
> things, and they already knew that Dumbledore would be able to stop 
> him if he fell

I was quite horrified by that scene. I read it as OBVIOUSLY Draco & 
Co were intending for Harry to faint and fall off his broomstick 
(altho', if Draco had had a bad Dementor experience on the train, 
explaining why the twins said he had nearly wet his pants, he should 
be intelligent enough to know that the mere SIGHT of a Dementor would 
not produce the psychological effects). They had no way of knowing 
that Dumbledore would be there to save Harry (he does not attend all 
the matches). And, in addition to being willing to MURDER Harry to 
win the match BY CHEATING, how in Hell did they expect to get away 
without being caught?! 








From Lanabana at aol.com  Sun Apr 21 21:24:12 2002
From: Lanabana at aol.com (Lanabana at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:24:12 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort Recruiting Harry
Message-ID: <40.1c819259.29f487fc@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38030

Rosie said:


> I don't think so because JKR said herself in a chat that Harry 
> wouldn't be tempted towards the dark side, and also, we don't know 
> the reasons why exactly Vold *wants* to kill Harry, but I think he 
> just wants to get rid of him ASAP, to show off his powers that killed 
> the "Famous Harry Potter." Lets just face it, Old Vold hates him. The 
> end.

It seems to me that Voldemort doesn't think that Harry has any great powers.  
In GoF he gave Harry his wand to duel with him. If Voldemort thought he had 
great powers wouldn't he not do this?? Possibly, that could of been an act of 
arrogance on Voldemort's part.  But then again, Harry is by no means a fully 
trained wizard so if he does have some extraordinary powers it is possible 
they couldn't have developed yet.
~Lana  P.S. I'm new!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Mon Apr 22 00:52:10 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:52:10 -0000
Subject: Continuing Education: A Wizarding Option?
In-Reply-To: <1a6.10152d5.29f22efa@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9vmrq+2mqc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38031

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., alexpie at a... wrote:
> The other day, I was thinking about what my career might be in Potterverse.  
> I sadly realized that it would be much as it is in this one--that is, editing 
> the likes of Gilderoy Lockhart.  I then began to wonder if graduate education 
> exists in Potterverse.  That is, if Ron decided to be a librarian and 
> Hermione decided to be a nurse, what would they do?  Obviously, Nurse 
> Pomphrey has had greater education that than which is offered at Hogwarts, as 
> has the librarian (sorry about lack of name, books inaccessible at the 
> moment).  In addition, aside from the DADA teachers, most of the teachers at 
> Hogwarts seem to have chosen teaching as a career (particularly McGonnagall). 
>  Surely when they graduated Hogwarts, they were not qualified as teachers at 
> seventeen!
>  
It isn't impossible. Back in the 1930's, my father taught grades 
1-8, 60 students, all subjects, with one semester of college beyond
the 12th grade.  At her present rate, Hermione probably would 
be able to sub for Snape, at least in the low-year classes, by the 
end of her 7th year.  You don't really need to know much more 
than your students, but you need to be able to send them 
beyond you.

As for post-Hogwarts education, We only have Tom Riddle's 
example. He studied with, the very darkest wizards around, 
at the time. Note the time lines that Dumbledore defeated 
Grindlewald in Riddle's seventh year, so those dark wizards 
likely were Gindlewald's old followers.  They were probably 
in hiding, so he had to seek them out.





From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Mon Apr 22 00:59:53 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:59:53 -0000
Subject: Continuing Education: A Wizarding Option?
In-Reply-To: <a9vmrq+2mqc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a9vna9+hi88@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38032

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> 
> As for post-Hogwarts education, We only have Tom Riddle's 
> example. He studied with, the very darkest wizards around, 
> at the time. Note the time lines that Dumbledore defeated 
> Grindlewald in Riddle's seventh year, so those dark wizards 
> likely were Gindlewald's old followers.  They were probably 
> in hiding, so he had to seek them out.

OOPS! Pushed the wrong button and didn't mean to post yet.

Another place to get post-Hogwarts education might be in the
Muggle universities.  Oxford and Cambridge go back a l-o-o-o-ng
way, and who know what goes on in some of those towers?

Tex





From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Mon Apr 22 01:18:51 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:18:51 -0000
Subject: Voldemort Recruiting Harry
In-Reply-To: <40.1c819259.29f487fc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a9vodr+n9j1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38033

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lanabana at a... wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that Voldemort doesn't think that Harry has any
great powers.  
> In GoF he gave Harry his wand to duel with him. If Voldemort
thought he had 
> great powers wouldn't he not do this?? Possibly, that could of been
an act of 
> arrogance on Voldemort's part.  But then again, Harry is by no
means a fully 
> trained wizard so if he does have some extraordinary powers it is
possible 
> they couldn't have developed yet.
> ~Lana  P.S. I'm new!

Hi, Lana,

That's right, this is the guy who would have killed a baby and 
proclaimed it a great thing.  Now he tries to kill a teenager.  Wow.
Such power. He thinks he has taken away Harry's old magic 
defense by using Harry's blood in his reincorporation potion.  We
don't know if he has or not.  The "Brother Wand" thing got in the
way.  I doubt we'll know for sure until Book Seven.

My gues is that when he gets a "clean" shot at Harry, the AK will
reflect back on him, as it did in Godrick's Hollow.  Voldemort 
tells his death-eaters that he became less than a ghost.  What 
might be less than a ghost? Perhaps those shadows that fly out
of a wand in a PI?  SO, how to get rid of Voldemort once and
for all, once he is in that that shadow state?  Would a Delitrius 
spell do it?


Tex





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Apr 22 03:32:18 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:32:18 -0000
Subject: Continuing Education: A Wizarding Option?
In-Reply-To: <a9vmrq+2mqc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa0083+ntfc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38034

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> 
> As for post-Hogwarts education, We only have Tom Riddle's 
> example. He studied with, the very darkest wizards around, 
> at the time. Note the time lines that Dumbledore defeated 
> Grindlewald in Riddle's seventh year, so those dark wizards 
> likely were Gindlewald's old followers.  They were probably 
> in hiding, so he had to seek them out.

I am CERTAIN that the wizarding world has forms of continuing 
education even tho' it doesn't have universities. Of course, one is 
to study on one's own, reading books and doing experiments (which I 
imagine that Tom Riddle did a lot of, before setting off to find Evil 
teachers). And to seek out teachers for an informal version of 
apprenticeship, as you indicate Tom Riddle did. I suspect that there 
isn't a Librarians Guild (and also no Bureaucrats Guild) so that Irma 
Pince learned her trade from informal apprenticeship: she got an 
entry-level job, or just hung out, in a library and learned from the 
librarian there. The same way that Percy is supposed to learn his job 
as a bureaucrat. Probably the same way Charlie learned to be a dragon 
wrangler.

I believe that there are also formal systems of apprenticeship, in 
well-organized guilds -- both practical and academic guilds. (In 
fact, I imagine that the Potions Guild, for example, always has an 
undercurrent of conflict between its practical members, who are 
apothecaries and so, and its academic members, who do research.) 

There might also be some vocational schools, altho' the only one I 
can think of just now, is that I think there are at least two ways to 
become trained and credentialled in medimagic: one is to become an 
apprentice (then journeyman, then master) of the Healers Guild (which 
I is what I think Pomfrey did) and the other is to go to a vocation 
school of medimagic, perhaps associated with St. Mungo's Hospital.

The applicant has to find one Master willing to take himer on as an 
apprentice (recommendations from Hogwarts professors, good scores on 
relevant NEWTs, the Master being friends with the applicant's parents 
might all help). Then learn from a mixture of hands-on assisting the 
master (the main part of vocational apprenticeship) and studying and 
writing essays and doing experiments assigned by the master (a bigger 
part of academic than vocational apprenticeship) plus attending some 
public lectures and demonstrations given by the Guild at the Guild- 
house. The difference beween that and being an undergraduate is 
subtract the whole social part of being an undergraduate: 
apprenticeship is not about meeting people who will be important and 
useful in later life.

The master can certify hiser apprentice as a journeyman, who is 
allowed to be employed in that field (generally only under the 
supervision of a master, but I suppose that some jobs are certified 
by the Guild as simple enough for a journeyman to do them without 
supervision) and can find the same or a different master to supervise 
hiser studies toward becoming a master himerself. The journeyman's 
studies in an academic guild are a bit like grad school (more like 
the years between having finished all the grad school classes and 
finishing the dissertation). Besides putting in a set amount of time 
and passing an examination (set by a Guild committee, all masters), 
the candidate must present a masterpiece: an example of work heesh 
has done that is of the quality expected of a master. In an academic 
guild, that is often a research discovery presented in the form of a 
dissertation. The masterpiece must be approved by a committee of 
guild masters, and then I envision at least the Transfiguration Guild 
requiring its candidates to defend their dissertations (answer 
questions more-or-less about) against all comers in the Guildhouse 
lecture hall for 24 hours straight... I suppose in the Potions Guild, 
the masterpiece, at least for those who intend to own their potion 
shop, is to brew a set of very complicated prescriptions.

The academic guilds may give the title of Doctor as an honor to 
some of their best masters (selected by a committee of Doctors), in 
which case, they may allow only Doctors to be on the committee for 
judging masterpieces, to supervise journeymen working toward Mastery, 
to run for Guild President, Treasurer, etc...




From elfundeb at aol.com  Mon Apr 22 04:43:23 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:43:23 EDT
Subject: Sorting Hat/Likeable Slytherin
Message-ID: <9a.24634628.29f4eeeb@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38035

I wrote (on the Sorting Hat choosing for the students):
> 
> > Maybe Parvati had always relied on Padma to do the thinking and 
> > Padma relied on Parvati to do the talking; both would develop
> > better if forced to rely on themselves.
> 
To which Catlady responded:

> Why didn't the same happen to Fred and George?
> 
I think the problem here is where to put the other twin.  Ambitious as I 
think they are, I can't see Fred going off to Slytherin; I think he could go 
astray rather easily there.  Ravenclaw, perhaps, based on their wit, but F&G 
are a two-man comedy team and it might have lost its punch.  No, I think the 
Sorting Hat couldn't find any other good fit for either of the twins.  
Nevertheless, I think it would have been a good idea to separate them  
(extrapolating from my own childhood experience where twins were always 
separated in school with, I think good results, and my own daughter's 
school's reluctance to separate twins and consequent classroom difficulties 
with their classroom behavior).

I wrote:
> 
> > Might the Sorting Hat be the agent of this plan? The Founders 
> > invested the hat with their collective wisdom (and, I'll bet, a
> > good chunk of their formidable magical powers). 
> 
Catlady:

> I am reluctant to trust a plan that includes Salazar Slytherin's 
> wisdom. The other Founders eventually threw him out...  
> 
Actually, I thought about whether it was a concern that some of Salazar's 
brains are in the Sorting Hat. But the Founders had to have put together the 
Sorting Hat before the rift developed between Salazar and the others.  Prof. 
Binns states that the founders worked in harmony together for a few years 
before the disagreement arose between Salazar and the others on the pureblood 
issue.  Binns says Salazar believed muggle-borns to be untrustworthy; Binns 
also says that it was a time when witches and wizards suffered much 
persecution, so concern about the trustworthiness of Muggle-borns does not 
seem like an indicator of evil; it sounds like a legitimate (though wrong) 
point of view.  Binns does not say that Slytherin was thrown out, only that 
he left, but obviously under such antipathy that he built the Chamber of 
Secrets, I assume for revenge. So I don't think the chain of events leads 
inevitably to the conclusion that Slytherin was inherently evil, since the 
other founders worked amicably with him for years, and since the timeline 
suggests that this was when the Sorting Hat was created.  If they had done it 
later, Slytherin would have been left out of the hat altogether, and he 
clearly was not or there would be no Slytherin House.

Also, the hat itself belonged to Godric Gryffindor, which gives me some 
comfort.

Heidi on evilly ambitious Slytherins:

> 1. That was only in the Sorting Hat's song first year - that concept wasn't 
> in the song during their 4th year, although ambition was mentioned then. 
> Would a 1st year who only hears that year's song think "Yes! I am 
> ambitious! 
> And I want to be with other ambitious people! Please! Slytherin! I'm not as 
> clever as the ravenclaws or as brave as tehe Gryffindors or as hard working 
> as the Hufflepuffs.I just want to be a best-selling romance novelist! Yes, 
> I 
> have ambition! Put me in Slytherin!" And if the Sorting Hat did the same 
> thing it had done for Harry, would some sweet yet ambitious kid end up in 
> Slytherin as a fluke? And what would happen to him once he did? The any 
> means 
> to achieve their ends thing would be completely unknown to them when they 
> made their "wish", and the reign of Voldemort and Darkness might seem so 
> remote as to not be a factor in the thinking about the houses. Even 
> Hermione, 
> when discussing houses in Book 1, never says, "And I wouldn't want to be in 
> Slytherin - they're all dark and evil!" which might imply that even in 
> 1991, 
> what happened 10 years before is remote enough to not be an issue. Draco 
> says 
> he wants to be in Slytherin because all his family had been, not because 
> 

The phrasing of Slytherin characteristics in PS/SS really bothers me, as it 
suggests that the defining characteristic of Slytherin house is the lack of 
moral guidelines to one's decisionmaking; anything is acceptable if necessary 
to achieve one's objectives, whatever they may be.  Nevertheless, nowhere 
does it say in canon that all Slytherins are evil (and Sirius doubted that 
even Snape was a DE).  But whether or not the statement should be taken at 
face value, ambition is more morally ambiguous than the defining 
characteristics of the other houses; thus it is likely that persons of lesser 
moral scruples will be well suited to Slytherin.  Thus, the Slytherins we see 
seem to have a harder edge than some of the others.  These are not people I'd 
like to spend time negotiating with.  But I think the Hat doesn't let the 
student choose (and the sweetly ambitious future romance novelist is a great 
example of why they shouldn't be allowed to choose for themselves).

> But what if you want to enforce school rules? Great goal! But you have to 
> sneak out of your dorm afterhours to do it. Not a problem! (see above) 
> Unless, of course, you're in Slytherin, in which case it seems to be deemed 
> a 
> greater level of rulebreaking than the sneaking out that Harry did to get 
> to 
> the mirror of erised, or to send Norbert away, or to stop Snape from 
> getting 
> the stone (I know they didn't actually, but that's what they thought they 
> were sneaking out to do).  I guess on an empirical level, taking someone 
> else's Remembrall to stick it 
> (unbroken!) up a tree is worse than stealing potions supplies from a 
> professor so you can make a potion so you can sneak into someone else's 
> dorm 
> room so you can learn if he's the Heir of Slytherin. And it's possible that 
> reporting a teacher to a staff member for being involved in a plot to steal 
> a 
> valuable stone is not as bad as trying to get a teacher fired from his 
> position for incompetence. And kicking a cat is certainly not as bad as 
> trying to get a Hippogryff decapitated, no matter what that Hippogryff did 
> to 
> 

These arguments are interesting, but they look only at the action and not at 
the motivation.  What the reader is seeing in these episodes is that Draco is 
acting out of the purely self-serving purpose of getting Harry & Co (where he 
is sneaking outside to catch HRH) or Hagrid (in the Buckbeak episode) into 
trouble.  You rightly point out that HRH broke a serious rule -- I would call 
causing an explosion in a classroom so you can steal from a professor a 
serious transgression -- for a seemingly trivial purpose.  But what underlies 
this chain of events is their conviction that students' lives are at risk -- 
including Hermione's -- and that in the weighing of conscience, they came 
down on the side of rulebreaking.  There were mistakes in judgement here, 
which should have earned them punishment if they had been caught; however, 
their goal is entirely moral.  So I perceive an enormous moral difference in 
their rulebreaking and Draco's.

Nevertheless, I sometimes get concerned about Dumbledore's response to 
Harry's rulebreaking.  For example, the Mirror of Erised was a powerful draw 
for Harry, so we know why he goes, but he wasn't supposed to be there.  Yet 
there is no mention of punishment.  However we justify Harry's rulebreaking 
(and with the exception of sneaking into Hogsmeade, which had no 
justification other than fun, his rulebreaking has a moral explanation behind 
it), the rules are selectively enforced at Hogwarts, at least for Harry.  
Maybe Dumbledore doesn't act because Harry's actions are part of a greater 
plan.  I just don't know.

Debbie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Sun Apr 21 16:48:51 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:48:51 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco *does* have a chance!
Message-ID: <IOFCHCBHGAENFCAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38036

On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:21:28  
 jenny_ravenclaw wrote:

>We have discussed many times that Draco may also change his mind >about the way he was raised when he sees his father in a more >unfavorable light (perhaps bowing to Voldemort or *gasp* >apologizing).

I'm not sure if seeing his father groveling would do it -- it might just scare him even more because his father doesn't grovel and if something is bad enough to make him do that, Draco is way to cowardly to resist.  Would it actually make him realize that Voldemort was wrong, or would it just show him that Voldemort was someone he shouldn't cross?

>Draco was terrified in SS when he was in the Forbidden Forest; can >you imagine how he'd react to a visit to Azkaban (ah, what a class >trip that would be)?  

I agree with this -- Draco appears to be an "all talk, no action" type of person -- he's essentially a coward who's only strong when surrounded by "bodyguards" like Crabbe and Goyle (eg. PS/SS when Harry tried to get the rememberall back when flying and Draco threw the rememberall rather than face Harry alone)

>Draco may not lay down his wand and say "I'll be a good boy from now >on and I sure love Muggles!", but I have a clear image of him >somehow turning away from some of the things he thought were true.  

I personally agree with this. I'd like nothing more than to have Draco switch sides like Snape did, but from a writer's perspective I'm not sure if it will happen.  

Right now Draco is Harry's main antagonist age-wise and that antagonism is important to the plot because Harry needs a rival if only to make his life more difficult.  Everytime he sees Draco doing something "evil" Harry has more reason to strive to make things better.  On the other hand, Draco seeing the truth of the "dark side" and consciously making a decision to do good would be an amazing message and hope for the future that the evil Voldemort began need not destroy everyone.  

Which option is better for the plot?  It's hard to say, but unless Harry notices a change in Draco's behaviour (for the good, or at least a show of uncertainty) by book 6 or at the start/throughout book 7  then any redemption on Draco's side will look contrived simply because we only get Harry's POV and we won't see a logical reason for Draco to suddenly be against Voldemort.

>Redemption does not mean his heart will suddenly grow in size like >the Grinch, but it might mean he'll want to save his own tuches when >push comes to shove.

The tricky thing with serious speculation like this is what does JKR have in mind?  IIRC there was an interview where JKR said that Draco will not be redeemed, but does she mean redemption like the Grinch was redeemed, or redemption in general such as going against Voldemort?

I personally hope that Draco grows some commonsense and spine and turns against Voldemort, but I think he'll have to fall a lot further before he has a chance of seeing the errors of his ways.

---
--Hana




See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net  Mon Apr 22 02:03:20 2002
From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:03:20 -0400
Subject: questions on Dumbledore and Harry
In-Reply-To: <1019397386.4689.48620.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020421220234.009f3960@mail.fantasysales.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38037

I have a question and I hope this goes through. On another of my HP lists 
someone asked how we all felt about Dumbledore just leaving Harry on the 
Dursley's doorstep, and shouldn't he have at least rung the doorbell 
instead of leaving Harry outside the door all night. The points were 
brought up also about how no one seemed to have checked up on Harry 
through the years. No one sent him birthday cards or even checked to make 
sure he was properly taken care of. And, instead of leaving him with the 
Dursleys, couldn't Harry have become a "ward of the court" so to speak, 
living at Hogwarts and having the staff take care of him? And another 
question also came up. What if Voldemort hadn't killed his parents. What 
kind of a person would he have turned out to be? Someone posted that he 
would have turned out to be a powerful wizard because of his 
wand.....something about the wand choosing the wizard. But, if things had 
been different, WOULD that particular wand have chosen Harry?


Also, I remember reading in this group something about pronunciations of 
certain words. I was sent a URL for Harry Potter words that say some of >the words. Just turn your sound up and click on the words.

  http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/index.htm

---
Kendra Grant-Bingham
~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~
"Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count."



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From Lanabana at aol.com  Mon Apr 22 03:07:37 2002
From: Lanabana at aol.com (Lanabana at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 23:07:37 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort Recruiting Harry
Message-ID: <d0.2606cb61.29f4d879@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38038

Tex said:
> My gues is that when he gets a "clean" shot at Harry, the AK will
> reflect back on him, as it did in Godrick's Hollow.  Voldemort 
> tells his death-eaters that he became less than a ghost.  What 
> might be less than a ghost? Perhaps those shadows that fly out
> of a wand in a PI?  SO, how to get rid of Voldemort once and
> for all, once he is in that that shadow state?  Would a Delitrius 
> spell do it?

Going on this theory, I still think that Voldemort being immortal wouldn't be 
able to be properly destroyed.  But, couldn't they "capture" him somehow and 
permentantly seal him somewhere??  It is only a thought but it is a 
possibility...
~Lana






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From usmtally02 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 04:06:43 2002
From: usmtally02 at yahoo.com (usmtally02)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 04:06:43 -0000
Subject: Continuing Education: A Wizarding Option?
In-Reply-To: <aa0083+ntfc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa028j+tg29@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38039

The way that I see the situation regarding the presence (or lack 
thereof) of continuing education is based on the reason it is 
present in the Muggle world.  Continuing education in the Muggle 
society is used in order to specialize in very precise areas of 
expertise.  However, there is no need to specialize very much in the 
magical world because everything one needs is readily available by 
means of some spell or potion one can easily learn from a book if 
he/she has not already learned it from Hogwarts or the like.  
Therefore, continuing education in the Muggle world would merely be 
extraneous.  I guess that's all....I might be wrong, but hey, oh 
well.
                                                          ~Tali 





From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 11:46:47 2002
From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:46:47 -0000
Subject: questions on Dumbledore and Harry--Continuing Education
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020421220234.009f3960@mail.fantasysales.net>
Message-ID: <aa0t77+1gg0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38040

I don't think that Harry was left and never "checked up" on through 
out his time with the Dursleys.  He was probably watched very closely 
and for some reason that we don't know yet, it was better for him to 
live the way he did.  I think it made him a stronger person and his 
background with the Dursley's will come in handy in a future book. 

I think that some of his protection with the Dursley's comes from not 
doing magic, perhaps because by him doing magic, the wizarding world 
could detect where he lives or otherwise "give away" his location to 
Voldermort.  A comment was made a while back about how other wizard 
children are able to fly broomsticks or perform spells to turn 
stuffed animals into spiders without getting a notice from the MOM.  
Why would the MOM jump all over Harry and not these other children?

By being raised at Hogwarts, Harry would be exposed exactly what 
Dumbledore wants to keep him away from-fame and noteriety. 

Now, for continuing education for wizards.  I think many of us from 
outside of England are thinking of ways in which we continue our 
educations.  I would have to assume that the wizards would continue 
their educations much like other English students.  Some entering the 
work force, some going into trades, some going onto University, etc.  
Since the educational system in England is much different than that 
in the US, it is difficult for us to imagine what these students do 
at the age of 18 when they are done with Hogwarts.  What would a 
muggle student do after they finish their basic schooling, what we 
would consider high school, to become a teacher?  Are there 
Universities that have teaching programs?  In the US a student would 
graduate from High School and move on to a 4 year program at a 
University (or college-which is basically the same thing as a 
University here).  They would then do an intership at a school, take 
a mastery test (in most states) and then be qualified to teach.  How 
would they accomplish that in England?

Gretchen



--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kendra Grant-Bingham <kendra_grant at f...> 
wrote:
> > someone asked how we all felt about Dumbledore just leaving Harry 
on the 
> Dursley's doorstep, and shouldn't he have at least rung the 
doorbell 
> instead of leaving Harry outside the door all night. The points 
were 
> brought up also about how no one seemed to have checked up on Harry 
> through the years. No one sent him birthday cards or even checked 
to make 
> sure he was properly taken care of. And, instead of leaving him 
with the 
> Dursleys, couldn't Harry have become a "ward of the court" so to 
speak, 
> living at Hogwarts and having the staff take care of him? > 
> ---
> Kendra Grant-Bingham
> ~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~
> "Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count."
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Mon Apr 22 12:47:28 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:47:28 -0000
Subject: Voldemort Recruiting Harry
In-Reply-To: <d0.2606cb61.29f4d879@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aa10p0+b8fo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38041

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lanabana at a... wrote:
> Tex said:
> > My gues is that when he gets a "clean" shot at Harry, the AK will
> > reflect back on him, as it did in Godrick's Hollow.  Voldemort 
> > tells his death-eaters that he became less than a ghost.  What 
> > might be less than a ghost? Perhaps those shadows that fly out
> > of a wand in a PI?  SO, how to get rid of Voldemort once and
> > for all, once he is in that that shadow state?  Would a Delitrius 
> > spell do it?
> 
> Going on this theory, I still think that Voldemort being immortal
wouldn't be 
> able to be properly destroyed.  But, couldn't they "capture" him
somehow and 
> permentantly seal him somewhere??  It is only a thought but it is a 
> possibility...

That may be.  The theory I was going on is that Voldemort *is*
Grindlewald, Having taken over Tom Riddle's body when Riddle
went to him (a' la Quirrel).  I think that would jibe with a lot of
mythology -- a permant, pervasive evil that goes on and on.

It would open the door to future books, though, e.g.
if Voldemort takes Draco's body and sesquicentenial Snape has
to fight him in 2115.  JKR might not want to do that.

Tex





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Mon Apr 22 13:29:34 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:29:34 -0000
Subject: questions on Dumbledore and Harry
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020421220234.009f3960@mail.fantasysales.net>
Message-ID: <aa137u+120e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38042

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kendra Grant-Bingham <kendra_grant at f...> 
wrote:
 I have a question and I hope this goes through. On another of my HP 
lists someone asked how we all felt about Dumbledore just leaving 
Harry on the Dursley's doorstep, and shouldn't he have at least rung 
the doorbell instead of leaving Harry outside the door all night. The 
points were brought up also about how no one seemed to have checked 
up on Harry through the years. No one sent him birthday cards or even 
checked to make sure he was properly taken care of. And, instead of 
leaving him with the Dursleys, couldn't Harry have become a "ward of 
the court" so to speak, living at Hogwarts and having the staff take 
care of him? 

IMO it is strange to leave a 15 month old outside all night at the 
end of October. A 15 month old, who even if he couldn't walk could 
certainly crawl off. Added to that, Harry would have been traumatised 
by being hurt and seeing his mother killed - even if he din't 
understand. Perhaps Dumbledore *knew* that Harry wouldn't wake up. In 
which case it was perhaps better for the Dursleys to start bonding 
with their nephew after a good night's sleep rather than in the 
middle of the night!

Dumbledore made it very clear that it was in Harry's best interests 
to be brought up away from the attention he would receive in the WW. 
As such, to leave him free to roam about in Hogwarts would not have 
been contemplated. WE also learn from Voldemort that Harry receives 
some sort of special protection from being in the Dursley's "care". 
Perhaps it is this protection which justifies - but doesn't excuse 
the decision to leave Harry being ill-treated without intervention.

IMO Dumbledore must have known - or had a strong idea - about the way 
the Dursleys treated Harry. I think we will find that Arabella Figg 
has acted both as some kind of protector and Dumbledore's "eyes and 
ears" as far as Harry's welfare is concerned. I also like the idea 
(suggested a month or so ago) that the 12 balls of light Dumbledore 
sent back from his "Put-outer" contribute to Harry's protection in 
Privet Drive.

I don't understand why Dumbledore didn't force the Dursleys to look 
after Harry better. But then again, why doesn't he speak to Harry 
again at the endof GOF? He talks to him immediately after the 
graveyard scene, but not afterwards. IMO this is wrong given what 
Harry's been through , and what Dumbledore *must* know he is 
returning to. (Molly would have told him about the Dursleys if he was 
really in the dark).

It seems that Dumbledore might be looking at the "bigger picture". 
Although he cares about Harry, Harry's emotional needs come second to 
the overall objectives which seem to be to protect him from physical 
harm. (Which he clearly fails to do in GOF). Dumbledore does have an 
interest in Harry's emotional wellbeing though, which is why he makes 
him sit through the Crouch interrogation, and why he questions him on 
the night of the Triwizard tournament and not later. (Although there 
must also have been an element of wanting to know what had happened 
as soon as possible). Dumbledore does seem to have a 
somewhat "laissez-faire" attitude to life, and he leaves things be 
even if they are not perfect. He may be the "best" wizard in the WW 
or in Harry's opinion, but that doesn't make him perfect.


Ali




From lrcjestes at earthlink.net  Mon Apr 22 13:47:04 2002
From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:47:04 -0000
Subject: Father figures or mentor or just plain teacher 
In-Reply-To: <a9vk55+2lft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa148o+6odp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38043

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> 
wrote:
> 
> I don't share the faith, widelly expressed on this thread, that the 
> negative father always has good *intentions* toward the child, much 
> less that the child will always grow up to realise that the 
negative 
> father had good *results*. Fathers are human beings, and, as such, 
> they can be in a bad mood or even downright evil. Can physically or 
> verbally beat up the kid just because they lost their temper 
because 
> of having had a lousy day. Can be trying to defeat the child 
because 
> of viewing the child as a rival. Can torture the child for sadistic 
> pleasure. 
> 
> I don't think there's any canon evidence that Vernon has EVER done 
> ANYTHING which he INTENDED to be for Harry's good. He took Harry 
> along to the zoo because he thought leaving him at home would be 
more 
> dangerous for himself, and bought him a lemon ice to avoid looking 
> bad to the ice cream vendor. The mean things he says to Harry are 
> just cruel, not intended to help Harry turn out well.
> 
> Snape HAS done things for Harry's good (countercursing Quirrell's 
> effort to knock him off his broomstick for sure; beating him up for 
> being "our new celebrity" maybe) but I feel sure that Snape has 
done 
> things that were spiteful to Harry simply out of spite and NOT for 
> Harry's own good. I am not convinced that Snape intended to teach 
> Harry better judgment than to put himself at risk by sneaking out 
to 
> Hogsmeade; I think Snape was simply relieving his own annoyance at 
> Harry.

Thank you Rita for making these points.  I agree with you here and 
want to further ask, why do we need to squish Snape into a father 
figure role at all?  That is obviously not his intent and not 
anything Harry would welcome in the least.  I think this was my 
initial question.  Yes Snape may do Harry some good in his efforts to 
teach and train and make Harry cautious, etc.  But why oh why does 
this have to be translated into some sort of either benevolent or 
malevolent fatherly figure.

It's one thing to have a real father who is human and may have the 
stern disiplinarian tendancies that Snape has as well as the 
sometimes spiteful nature Snape seems to exhibit towards Harry, it's 
quite another to foist that on the child who has never known anything 
but abuse.  This is something I think both Snape and Harry would 
object to.  To curse someone who has never had any kind of father 
with Snape who by the Snapefans admission exemplifies more of the 
negative aspects of a father is just beyond me. Cast Snape as a 
guardian angel (as someone suggested) or a mentor, or simply as a 
crotchity, vindictive, yet highly skilled teacher (which he is), but 
father figure...no way.

Carole




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 14:05:31 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:05:31 -0000
Subject: Voldemort Recruiting Harry
In-Reply-To: <aa10p0+b8fo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa15bb+2drb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38044

> > Tex said:
> > > My gues is that when he gets a "clean" shot at Harry, the AK 
> > > will reflect back on him, as it did in Godrick's Hollow.  
> > > Voldemort tells his death-eaters that he became less than a 
> > > ghost.  What might be less than a ghost? Perhaps those shadows 
> > > that fly out of a wand in a PI?  SO, how to get rid of 
> > > Voldemort once and for all, once he is in that that shadow 
> > > state?  Would a Delitrius spell do it?

What on earth is a Delitrius spell?  I don't believe that's in any 
of the books.  Voldemort isn't said to be less than a ghost, he is 
said to be "less than spirit."  We might associate a spirit with a 
ghost, but I suspect it is a technical term the definition of which 
has not been made clear by JKR.  And there is no evidence that an 
Avada Kedavra spell would behave any differently from any other 
spell were Voldemort to cast it on Harry; he had absolutely no 
problem putting the Cruciatus Curse on him, after all, once he had 
used some of Harry's blood to regain his body.

I don't believe it was possible to completely rid the world of 
Voldemort when he was in his shadow state because there wasn't 
enough of him for a spell to act upon.  The shadows that flew out of 
the wand were echoes of spells, and they eventually faded; Voldemort 
didn't fade, he simply existed in a less-than-corporeal state until 
he had gained enough strength from possessing other creatures (like 
snakes and small rodents and Quirrell) and drinking unicorn blood 
and snake venom to take on that ugly-baby-form Harry saw.

Is it possible I am to blame for this thread, due to my Voldemort-
trying-to-recruit-Harry plotline in HP & the Psychic Serpent?  If 
so, I think my speculation-as-fanfic has been slightly 
misunderstood.  To separate it from my writing, I was speculating 
that Voldemort might try to recruit Harry not to actually have him 
on his side, but to get him to lower his guard (keep your friends 
close and your enemies closer, as they say).  

I know JKR said Harry wouldn't be tempted to become a dark wizard; 
that's not a relevant argument here.  Voldemort doesn't read JKR 
interviews. <g>  The question wasn't whether Voldemort would SUCCEED 
in recruiting Harry, the question was whether he would TRY.  I don't 
believe that Voldemort thinks that Harry has or had any great power 
(it's a good point that he gave him a wand to duel--although, 
remember, that was after he believed he took away Harry's one 
protection).  I do believe that Voldemort was under the impression 
that Harry would someday do something to lead to Voldemort's 
downfall.  When Trelawney makes the prediction about Wormtail 
returning to his master in PoA, Dumbledore later calls it her second 
correct prediction.  I believe (and I'm hardly alone here) that 
Trelawney predicted Voldemort's first fall from power, and 
attributed it to Harry.

The way I see the sequence of events is this: Trelawney predicts 
Voldemort's fall and attributes it to Harry (or possibly to a 
Potter, which might be why James was killed and why Voldemort wasn't 
necessarily there to kill Lily, a Potter-by-marriage).  Voldemort 
assumes it would naturally not be possible until Harry is older and 
so he goes to Godric's Hollow to nip the problem in the bud.  He 
kills James easily and figures the next step is to kill Harry and 
his night's work is done.  But Lily gets in the way and Harry is 
protected by her sacrifice, causing the curse to rebound upon 
Voldemort.  

Also, in trying to kill a baby with no inherently special powers 
except the usual magical ability of your average wizard, Voldemort 
ironically transfers some of his own powers to Harry (Parseltongue 
is the only one we know of, but I suspect there's more) making him a 
more formidable opponent once he has further magical education and 
learns to draw on these powers.  (Perhaps this is the reason he's 
able to conjure a Patronus as a thirteen-year-old and why he can 
almost immediately overcome the Imperius Curse as a fourteen-year-
old.)  It is a time-honored device to have someone trying to avert 
an event and causing it to happen by so doing.  (See the myth of 
Oedipus.)

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lanabana at a... wrote:>
> > Going on this theory, I still think that Voldemort being immortal
> > wouldn't be able to be properly destroyed.  But, couldn't 
> > they "capture" him somehow and permentantly seal him 
> > somewhere??  It is only a thought but it is a possibility...

Um, is Voldemort a genie now?  Besides, the question is moot now 
that he has his body back.  However, he isn't as powerful as he was 
before.  He spoke of having gone further toward immortality than 
anyone else, which is JKR's way of explaining why the rebounding 
spell didn't kill him.  Hypothetically, in his current average-
wizard state, if he killed someone who was protecting someone else, 
as Lily was, and then tried to kill the person that was being 
protected, it's possible that the spell could rebound off that 
person and really finish him off for good.  Which means he probably 
won't try this.  The question is, how quickly will he be able to 
build up his strength again?  He's done it before, so he knows the 
ropes.  I suspect he will lie low for a while while he engages in 
numerous magical experiments to regain what he lost.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:>
> That may be.  The theory I was going on is that Voldemort *is*
> Grindlewald, Having taken over Tom Riddle's body when Riddle
> went to him (a' la Quirrel).  I think that would jibe with a lot of
> mythology -- a permant, pervasive evil that goes on and on.

Now this is an interesting theory.  If it's been posted before, I 
missed it.  We know that Grindelwald fell in 1945, due to the 
actions of Dumbledore (although we don't know what those actions 
were).  Note that the term used on Dumbledore's Famous Wizards card 
is "fall."  He isn't said to have KILLED Grindelwald.  And by most 
folks' calculations, Tom Riddle was born in 1927 and would therefore 
be finishing his seventh year at Hogwarts (as Head Boy) in 1945.  
Could he have convinced Dumbledore to take him along to help defeat 
Grindelwald?  Could he have somehow given the defeated dark wizard a 
vessel in which to place his power?  I will definitely be on the 
lookout for more Grindelwald references in future books.

> It would open the door to future books, though, e.g.
> if Voldemort takes Draco's body and sesquicentenial Snape has
> to fight him in 2115.  JKR might not want to do that.

Now, this is doubtful.  I can see Draco doing something that he 
thinks will help Voldemort and inadvertantly helping the good guys 
(while I don't think he'll really be rehabilitated, I think he could 
unwillingly do something helpful, which would really irk him, to put 
it lightly).  I don't see him being a very successful dark wizard, 
however; we've already seen how imprudent he is.  His own father has 
to remind him to maintain a facade, to not say bad things about 
Harry in public.  Lucius Malfoy, OTOH, I wouldn't trust as far as I 
could throw him.  And JKR's only writing about Harry through the end 
of his seventh year anyway.   

--Barb
The Triangle Prophecy has begun!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 14:29:19 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:29:19 -0000
Subject: McGonagall & Riddle/Snape and Harry/Snape and Sirius
In-Reply-To: <a9vk55+2lft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa16nv+k4jp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38045

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> 
wrote:
> GulPlum wrote:
> 
> > I don't see any implication that McGonnagal went into teaching as
> > a career to the exclusion of anything else - after all, although
> > she'd have been the right age, she would have been there in 
> > Riddle's time...
> 
> She would have been a STUDENT in Riddle's time.

Actually, if she was around 75 in 1992 (wasn't it around the time of 
the second book that JKR said Dumbledore was 150 and McGonagall was 
75?) she would have been born in 1917, ten years before Riddle.  If 
she was actually born as late as 1921, she would have been a seventh 
year when Riddle was a first year, but I think they missed being 
students at the same time by a few years.  (She probably finished in 
1935 and he would have started in 1938.) There's no way of telling 
whether she went right into teaching after finishing school, but 
during Riddle's time in school, wasn't Dumbledore still the 
Transfiguration teacher? (Riddle's diary)

> Marianne wrote:
> 
> > "Who's he to lecture me about being out-of-bounds...after all the
> > stuff he did at school?" But, Harry is only mildy miffed at 
> > this; whereas had Snape said the same thing to him, Harry would 
> > have been very annoyed.  
> 
> But Harry COULDN'T have said the same about Snape, as he doesn't 
> know of Snape breaking any rules as a student.

This is true; perhaps Marrianne was assuming because of the 
statement about Snape knowing more curses when he started Hogwarts 
than many seventh years know; it's not completely off-the-wall to 
assume that someone who knows a lot of dark curses might actually 
use them.  (My guess is, however, that Snape would have masterfully 
eluded the authorities and rarely received detention.)

> Snape HAS done things for Harry's good (countercursing Quirrell's 
> effort to knock him off his broomstick for sure; beating him up 
> for being "our new celebrity" maybe) but I feel sure that Snape 
> has done things that were spiteful to Harry simply out of spite 
> and NOT for Harry's own good. I am not convinced that Snape 
> intended to teach Harry better judgment than to put himself at 
> risk by sneaking out to Hogsmeade; I think Snape was simply 
> relieving his own annoyance at Harry.

He also speaks repeatedly of Harry being as cocky as James.  Part of 
his complicated relationship with Harry definitely stems from his 
complicated relationship with James Potter.  And there's the time 
James saved his life, leaving him with a debt to repay (to someone 
whom he greatly dislikes).  One has to wonder how the Potters knew 
in the first place that they needed a Secret Keeper.  Most folks in 
the wizarding world didn't seem to have Secret Keepers.  Perhaps 
Snape got wind of the Potters being targeted and went to Dumbeldore, 
figuring that as big a git as he thought James was, he didn't 
deserve to die and have his family die as well.  It would also be a 
way for Snape's debt to be paid (plus escaping continuing to do 
whatever gruesome things he'd been forced to do as a Death Eater).  

Unfortunately, it didn't work, and the man he was trying to protect, 
James Potter, was killed, and his child orphaned.  Snape would 
obviously blame Sirius Black, whom he already didn't like anyway.  
This means he still has a debt, which is transferred to Harry.  
Harry displays many of the annoying traits Snape disliked in James, 
and he may also be annoyed that Harry's recklessness may prevent 
Snape from paying his debt.  He has also been carrying around 
resentment of Sirius Black (for multiple reasons) for many years, 
and suddenly being asked by Dumbledore at the end of GoF to work on 
the same side as Sirius has got to be giving him an ulcer or 
something. <g>
 
--Barb
The Triangle Prophecy is here!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb   




From jillyharris at triton.net  Mon Apr 22 13:59:21 2002
From: jillyharris at triton.net (Jilly Harris)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:59:21 -0400
Subject: Magic in vacations (was questions on Dumbledore and Harry--Continuing  Education)
References: <aa0t77+1gg0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CC41739.EE741159@triton.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38046


Gretchen/mrflynn6 wrote:

I think that some of his protection with the Dursley's comes from not

> doing magic, perhaps because by him doing magic, the wizarding world
> could detect where he lives or otherwise "give away" his location to
> Voldermort.  A comment was made a while back about how other wizard
> children are able to fly broomsticks or perform spells to turn
> stuffed animals into spiders without getting a notice from the MOM.
> Why would the MOM jump all over Harry and not these other children?

But on the other hand, the two responsible (and I'm only going by
two/three characters here) Draco's father as the Minister
of Magic in his back pocket. Draco could easily learn and not worry
about trouble because Fudge is such a coward, he
probably would not go up against Lucius. The Weasley twins probably were
reprimanded privately, because the Ministry
most likely commented to Arthur about it since he's in the Ministry.

It's rumored that there is a protection charm around the Dursley's,
which is why Harry can't go to the Weasleys any earlier
than he does. (Or it was said in GoF). Harry also lives with Muggles,
which is probably why they jumped on him first. I'm
sure if Hermione had been practicing magic they would have said
something to her. In the movie (can't remember if it was
in the book or not) it's stated that she tried a few simple spells that
worked for her after getting her books. I'm sure at some
point we didn't see, McGonagall pulled her aside to inform her that she
couldn't DO magic outside of Hogwart's. Being a
muggle-born, I'm sure she didn't know that.

That's just my $0.02

Jilly (A newbie *g*)





From adatole at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 15:41:21 2002
From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:41:21 -0000
Subject: underage wizards doing magic, family protection, post-schooling
Message-ID: <aa1av1+1vr9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38047

Just had to chime in on these threads.

First, I think we need to keep in mind that MOM is not exactly 
stating that underage wizards should not perform magic. More to the 
point, they are saying that underage wizards cannot perform magic 
that would give them away to Muggles. 

Think about it - Lily obviously came home and performed magic, or 
else Petunia could never have commented on turning teacups into 
hedgehogs (or whatever the quote was in SS/PS). Fred and George are 
constantly performing magic in their room, etc. I would strongly 
suspect that Hermione also performs magic at home (probably to 
practice the coming years' lessons and be prepared!). The difference 
between all these folks and Harry is that the adults around them 
support this activity, and would never tell anyone outside the 
confines of the home.
*****************

In regard to Harry's protection in the Dursley's house - I would 
personally avoid over-analysis. Just like the whole "Mother's Love" 
protection thing, it is no more and no less complicated than that. 
Harry was protected by Lily's sacrifice of love. He is protected by 
the bond of family he shares with the Dursleys (whether they like him 
or not). Voldemort could walk up the front steps and knock on the 
door, but there is some reason he could not harm Harry in that 
environment (or else he would have tried by now - even by sending 
Peter). 
****************

For post schooling of wizards, I would presume that this follows the 
other conventions we have seen. Wizards have "locked" themselves into 
the vaguely medieval world. They don't have an equivalent of a 
television, radio, or even transport beyond something like a cart. 
(discounting the Ford Anglia, of course). Therefore I would expect 
that post-school age wizards usually follow an apprenticeship of 
sorts, and enter their professional lives after on-the-job 
experience. 




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Mon Apr 22 16:10:21 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:10:21 -0000
Subject: Day-Mare Retriever/Class-Skipper (filk)
Message-ID: <aa1cld+lhan@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38048

Day-Mare Retriever/Class-Skipper (from GoF, Chap. 29)

Dedicated to Jenny of Ravenclaw

NOTE: I'm using two different songs to dramatize this chapter. 
Harry's portion is sung to the tune of Daydream Believer, and 
Trelawney's to the tune of Day Tripper.

Hear Daydream Believer at:

http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1960s.html#D

Hear Day Tripper at

http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/penny/31/beatles.html

THE SCENE: Trelawney's classroom. HARRY dozes off during her lecture 
on planetary divination, and has a terrifying "day-mare" about 
Voldemort

HARRY
Oh, dreamt I flew on the wings of an owl in early Spring
An ivy-covered house we're entering
There's hissing and I spy a man with wat'ry eyes
He begs a voice cold and threat'ning.

Pete as snake cuisine, oh what can it mean
When a day-mare retriever hears a Death-Eating fiend?

Voldy lectured Pete on the blunder he had made
But it hadn't "ruined everything"
It seems Nagini won't get Pete
But it's me that he's to eat
Then with a Crucio Voldy played

On the floor I'm layin', my curse scar wracked with pain
Oh, this day-mare retrievin' really burns up your brain

(Sensing that HARRY is about to depart without revealing his vision, 
TRELAWNEY tries to get him to talk)

TRELAWNEY
Here's a good reason
For tracing the Martian route
It's now the season 
For following Neptune about now
Are you a class skipper?
That ain't cricket, yeah
I saw you're so quick to get vibed
So let's imbibe

You're a great seer
Your Eye saw ever so far
It's become so clear
I saw you clutching your scar, now
Don't be a class skipper
You're really clickin', yeah
You've shown you're psychic to the max
So don't be lax

You copped some Z's here 
You saw a Vision so grand
I've expertise here
You'll see further than planned, now

HARRY ignores her and starts to leave her class

TRELAWNEY (to HARRY, simultaneous with below)
But you're a class-skipper
Toward your sickbed, yeah
But if you run now there's no doubt
You won't find out


HARRY (to himself, simultaneous with above)
I must leave this scene, to Dumbledore come clean
Of my day-mare retrieval of these events obscene

Exit Harry

TRELAWNEY
Class-skipper, class-skipper, yeah

  - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 





From caliburncy at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 16:16:35 2002
From: caliburncy at yahoo.com (caliburncy)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:16:35 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #4--Will HP become classic?
Message-ID: <aa1d13+cg1b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38049

Greetings!

Yes, Luke of the Long and Rambling HP Essays is back out from behind 
his backstage curtain as a List Elf, once again posting here on the 
main list. . . . And what is the impetus for this momentous occasion 
(perhaps dreaded by many members who hoped he had finally shut up)?  
Why, to bring you the next in our official set of discussion 
questions, of course!

All these questions are from Philip Nel's book "JK Rowling's Harry 
Potter Novels: A Reader's Guide", which you can check out here:
http://www.continuumbooks.com/prev.cgi?bk_id=2431.

And the full list of discussion questions (used with permission) can 
be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Discussion%
20Summaries/DISCUSSION%20QUESTIONS%20FROM%20PHILIP%20NEL.htm.

For those keeping track, this week's question, although fourth in our 
order of presentation, is actually question eleven in the book itself 
and in the full list referenced above.


--------------------------------------
 Now then, on to THE QUESTION itself.
 Philip Nel writes:
--------------------------------------

Nigel Newton, the chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing, has 
predicted the HP books "will still be bought for children in 100 
years' time."  (Prynn).  Is he merely promoting his company's 
interests?  Will the Potter novels be classics?   What do they share 
in common with other classics?  In your answer, decide how you'll 
define the word 'classic.'  Does it denote 'classic literature for 
children,' 'classic fantasy,' 'classic British literature'?  
Something else?  In defining the term, choose some points of 
comparison.  If you think they are classics, are we to compare the 
novels with works by Lewis Carroll?  C.S. Lewis?  Charles Dickens?  
If not, what would be your point of comparison?  Enid Blyton?  
Against what other works are we to measure the HP series?  What are 
the criteria of a classic?


---------------------------------------------------
 And, as if that wasn't enough to chew on already,
 here are my own FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS:
---------------------------------------------------

1) Many of our most classic stories--and by this we refer to oral 
tradition stories such as the Arthurian legends or fairy tales--are 
archetypal in nature.  Consider the possible interplay between 
archetypes and classic books.  How many classics that are 'more 
modern', such as the works of Dickens or Tolkien or Roald Dahl (all 
of which Harry Potter often garners comparison to), play to similar 
archetypes as those oral tradition stories?  Are archetypes a 'free 
ticket' to becoming a classic, or do only some archetypal stories 
succeed?  If the latter, why perhaps--beyond the fickle fancies of 
the marketplace--do some succeed and others not?  What in Harry 
Potter's use of archetypes may have caused it to fall in 
the 'successful' category?

2) People often describe a classic as being 'timeless', and the 
implication of this statement is that whatever appeal the book has, 
it cannot be limited to a particular generation.  Therefore, it is 
reasonable enough to assume that a book that is pure social 
commentary--for example, a fictional retelling of originally factual 
events where the characters are clearly intended to resemble present-
day celebrities--is unlikely to continue to appeal to later 
generations who are unfamiliar with those references (celebrities, in 
the example), unless the book holds some appeal that can still be 
gleaned without understanding the particulars of the social 
commentary.  Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland is instructive here, 
as a story which includes many references to contemporary politics 
but which has nevertheless outlasted the issues to which it referred, 
simply because it can be read on many other levels besides the social 
commentary.  Does Harry Potter contain any possible social 
commentary, or is it more concerned with 'timeless' matters of the 
human condition?  If it does contain any social commentary, is this 
the sort that is only of value if read as an indictment of certain 
present-day issues, or does it continue to hold appeal even without 
such comparisons?

3) Although sometimes classics are 'created', by school teachers and 
university professors who find them of value and therefore add them 
to the curriculum for the sake of their students, the vast majority 
of classics are spread through a form of evangelism which occurs 
between family and friends.  In short: word of mouth, a phenomenon 
that is largely responsible for Harry Potter's success in the first 
place.  But for Harry Potter to become classic, this word of mouth 
must be persistent throughout multiple generations: the children of 
today, once adults, must share it with the children of tomorrow.  
This is true even if you do not view Harry Potter as a children's 
book, because adults sharing it only with similarly-aged adults will 
still technically cause the book to die with that particular age 
group.  So even if the aforementioned "children of tomorrow" are, in 
fact, adults at the time they first read Harry Potter, this 
generational interplay is still potentially necessary.  Does Harry 
Potter have the potential to achieve this cross-generational 
sharing?  How might Harry Potter's existing cross-generational appeal 
be indicative of this?

4) One complaint frequently lodged against Harry Potter (aside from 
allegedly promoting witchcraft and/or not possessing 'true' literary 
merit) is the assertion that Harry Potter is basically derivative of 
its preceeding works.  Are these claims valid?  More importantly, are 
they even relevant?  Most persons involved in the literary world will 
tell you that, while obviously something can be clearly derived from 
other works in almost plagiaristic fashion and/or can be heavily 
dependent upon cliche, there is no story in existence that is 
truly "original".  Consider the difference between a derivitave work 
and an archetypal one.  Which term is most accurately applied to 
Harry Potter?  Will Harry Potter's alleged lack of "originality" be 
detrimental to its eventually becoming classic?  In other words, will 
its more "original" predecessors outlast it, once the newness of 
Harry Potter has worn off, or does Harry Potter hold something 
special to set it apart?


----------------------------------------------
 For a cursory and haphazard overview of some
 past discussion on this topic, check out the
 following BACK MESSAGES:
----------------------------------------------

Quick preamble: One of the reasons I am so excited about this 
particular discussion question is that, believe it or not, we've 
really never discussed it in depth before.  Yes, I scoured the 
archives, both here and in the separate Archives group, and as far as 
I can tell this has only been indirectly raised via discussion of the 
backlash against HP's popularity, the classification of HP (genre and 
age), the literary merit of HP, comparisons of HP to other works, 
HP's universal appeal, etc--all of which have some bearing on this 
topic, but do not directly address the topic itself.  And even in 
those fairly rare instances of indirect addressal (with regards to 
HP's status as a classic), the tendency leans toward very short 
statements of opinion, rather than rough-and-tumble debate, or even 
sustained discussion.

Perhaps this is a failing of any fandom, that we can't really sustain 
discussion on a "merit-based, self-evaluation" topic like this . . . 
but I don't really buy that.  Not with this group.  We've responded 
level-headedly (including consideration and even concession of some 
of the points made) to the oft inflammatory drop-ins from anti-
Potterites.  We've firmly asserted that heavy analysis and nitpicking 
and even criticism do not in any way deny our status as "fans", and 
we therefore engage in these activities on a regular and obsessive 
basis.  And most importantly, we are never all of one mind on 
*anything*.  So my hope is that we will see a variety of viewpoints 
here, rather than an all-out gush session, fun as that might be.

But, hey, do whatever you like.  (Err, within the boundaries of the 
List Rules of course.)  Anyway . . . back messages.  Right.


***

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/message/6661

Ebony briefly explains her view that the gatekeepers (literary 
critics) have already ensured HP's place as a part of the classic 
children's literature canon.

***

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/message/6725

Heidi references a New York Times article cataloguing some anti-
Potter sentiment from critics who certainly don't view the books as 
upcoming classics.  See all responses for the full thread of 
discussion.

***

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/1794

Pippin comments on JKR's use of very conventional storytelling 
elements, and how conventional is another word for classic.

***

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/7353

A little ways down, Catlady talks about the uselessness of literary 
criticism in identifying what makes a book classic (among other 
things).  Although completely tangential to our topic at hand, Caius 
has an interesting response. 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/7646)

***

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/11227

Andrea brings up an interview with critic Harold Bloom about HP.  See 
all responses for the full thread of discussion.

***

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/18661

Joywitch quotes a New York Times article about scholarly interest in 
HP and some of its classical inspirations.

***

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/23538

Prefect Marcus raises the question of what about HP has contributed 
to its universal appeal.  See all responses for the full thread of 
discussion.  I mean it: see all responses--this is a particularly 
relevant and insightful thread.  Make sure you scan the whole message 
index in that time period for responses (look for any relevant-
looking subject headers), not just the shortened list of responses 
Yahoo gives at the end of Prefect Marcus' initial post.

***

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/29935

Heather Moore maps out HP according to the framework of Joseph 
Campbell's version of the Hero's Journey.  (Relevant to the follow-up 
question I posed about archetypes.)

***

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/31948

A little ways down, Susanna/pigwidgeon37 proposes that one thing JKR 
is good at is providing the right basic/archetypal information so as 
to imply much larger descriptions by the reader filling in the blank.

***

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/37257

Petra Pan explains archetypes as a defense against claims of HP's 
unoriginality.

***


Of course, this is an incomplete list, and especially skips many 
statements of opinion with regards to HP's status as a classic, along 
with other insightful comments I deemed too tangential to include, 
but hopefully it will provide some background of what has been 
discussed before.

Okay, have at it!  I hope to join in with my own musings later on, 
but I'll refrain for now.  (Here now, you in the peanut gallery!  
Stop cheering!)

-Luke




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Mon Apr 22 18:20:57 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:20:57 -0000
Subject: underage wizards doing magic, family protection, post-schooling
In-Reply-To: <aa1av1+1vr9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa1ka9+r71r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38050

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" <adatole at y...> wrote:
> Just had to chime in on these threads.
> 
> First, I think we need to keep in mind that MOM is not exactly 
> stating that underage wizards should not perform magic. More to the 
> point, they are saying that underage wizards cannot perform magic 
> that would give them away to Muggles. 

Actually, I disagree with you here. The letters they receive at the 
end of PS/SS tell them not to use magic in the holidays. When Harry 
receives his reprimand from the MOM for the "pudding incident" it is 
because he contravened the law against using magic in front of 
Muggles - AND because as an underage wizard he was not allowed to use 
magic outside school.
> 
> Think about it - Lily obviously came home and performed magic, or 
> else Petunia could never have commented on turning teacups into 
> hedgehogs (or whatever the quote was in SS/PS). Fred and George are 
> constantly performing magic in their room, etc. I would strongly 
> suspect that Hermione also performs magic at home (probably to 
> practice the coming years' lessons and be prepared!). The 
difference between all these folks and Harry is that the adults 
around them support this activity, and would never tell anyone 
outside the  confines of the home.
> *****************
I think here, you have just underlined one of the inconsistencies in 
the Potterverse. Whilst it is possible that Lily was allowed to 
perform magic at home as the law could have been brought in after her 
time, Hermione certainly tried spells before she went to Hogwarts. 
However, once there we here no mention of her performing underage 
magic outside Hogwarts. The twins are a different matter, unless the 
pops and bangs we hear about were not magical which seems unlikely. 
Whilst this is probably just an inconsistency, people have tried to 
justify Harry getting caught, with the idea that he is more closely 
watched than other Hogwarts children.

> 
> In regard to Harry's protection in the Dursley's house - I would 
> personally avoid over-analysis. Just like the whole "Mother's Love" 
> protection thing, it is no more and no less complicated than that. 
> Harry was protected by Lily's sacrifice of love. He is protected by 
> the bond of family he shares with the Dursleys (whether they like 
him or not). Voldemort could walk up the front steps and knock on the 
> door, but there is some reason he could not harm Harry in that 
> environment (or else he would have tried by now - even by sending 
> Peter). 

Whilst you may well be right, I think there is enough amgiguity in 
canon to justify analysis. I personally believe that it is more 
complicated than just the bond he shares with the Dursleys although 
that is the core of the protection:

Voldemort says (GOF p.570 UK) that "he has been better protected than 
I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long 
ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future.Dumbledore 
invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as 
he is in his relations' care"  This indicates to me that whilst the 
protection is because he is with the Dursleys, there are a few lines 
("ways") of defence.

I also think that it is no coincidence that we have been reintroduced 
to Mrs Figg who used to babysit for Harry. We know that the same 
woman was both Harry's babysitter and a member of what Dumbledore 
called the "Old Crowd". It would not seem over presumptious to 
believe that Mrs Figg couls have been a wizard pretending to be a 
muggle. Why would she want to do that - other than to protect Harry 
who lived 2 streets away?

Ali

who must now go and wash her daughters hair! Back to reality






From kerelsen at quik.com  Mon Apr 22 18:29:24 2002
From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:29:24 -0400
Subject: Wizarding technology (was: post-schooling)
References: <aa1av1+1vr9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009101c1ea2b$a2159020$e389d5d1@kerelsen>

No: HPFGUIDX 38051


----- Original Message -----
From: "adatole" <adatole at yahoo.com>

SNIP
> For post schooling of wizards, I would presume that this
follows the
> other conventions we have seen. Wizards have "locked"
themselves into
> the vaguely medieval world. They don't have an equivalent of a
> television, radio, or even transport beyond something like a
cart.
> (discounting the Ford Anglia, of course).

Actually, they DO have an equivelent to radio:  The WW or
Wizarding Wireless (which is what the radio was called in Britain
back from the beginning, although I don't know if it's called
that anymore today) which was mentioned in GOF.  If they don't
have transport beyond a cart, how on earth did Arthur get the
gang to Kings Cross in "Ministry cars," also in GOF if I'm
recalling correctly? (My daughter has all four books with her at
school...) And the Knight Bus isn't anything like a carriage or
cart... Of course it's not a lot like a regular omnibus on the
inside either! LOL!

I personally see that, eventually, fashions in the WW will change
and they'll be taking more advantage of Muggle technology
(adapted to use magic) simply in order to blend in a bit better
for their own protection.  Driving about in a carriage is going
to get you noticed.  We've got a generation of kids who are
Muggleborn wizards and witches who have been exposed to Muggle
Technology.  There appear to be more Muggleborns coming up than
before, their segment of the population is increasing.  These
kids are going to want to keep the best of the Muggle world along
with the Wizarding World they've been brought into by their
attendence at Hogwarts.  By the time they are in the majority and
the older generations have passed on, I'm sure we'll be seeing
more Wizards driving magically adapted cars than carriages if
they can't use broomstick or apparation or floo. (And how can you
use the Floo Network when most modern (Post WWII) housing doesn't
have fireplaces?)  The transition to the newer technology will be
slower going into the WW because wizards apparently live longer,
and therefore the old styles will be harder to push aside than
they'd be if the older generation were dying off faster.  But
ultimately, I see that the transition will take effect.  Not
necessarily all over the WW, since they still have a LOT of
medieval holdovers built into their society, but there are a lot
of places it can sneak in and once established, it will bloom.

Just my two knuts!
Bernadette

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 19:23:38 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:23:38 -0000
Subject: underage wizards doing magic, family protection, post-schooling
In-Reply-To: <aa1ka9+r71r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa1nvq+d71l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38052

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" <adatole at y...> wrote:
> > First, I think we need to keep in mind that MOM is not exactly 
> > stating that underage wizards should not perform magic. More to 
> > the point, they are saying that underage wizards cannot perform 
> > magic that would give them away to Muggles. 

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" <Ali at z...> wrote:> 
> Actually, I disagree with you here. The letters they receive at 
> the end of PS/SS tell them not to use magic in the holidays. When 
> Harry receives his reprimand from the MOM for the "pudding 
> incident" it is because he contravened the law against using magic 
> in front of Muggles - AND because as an underage wizard he was not 
> allowed to use magic outside school.

No, he was reprimanded because someone TOLD the MoM that he'd done 
it (probably Dobby, still trying to find a way to keep Harry from 
going back to Hogwarts).  The Ministry seems to work on an honor 
system to a certain extent when it comes to the underage magic law 
and the laws against letting Muggles see magic, but if someone rats 
on you you're in big trouble.  If no one tells the Ministry 
Hermione, Ron, the twins, etc. have been doing magic and they don't 
hear of it through the Muggle news, no one seems to get in trouble.  
(Remember--when Ron and Harry arrive at Hogwarts after smashing the 
car into the Willow, it's all over the Evening Prophet that Muggles 
all over the country spotted a flying car.  This is a blatant 
violation of the law requiring secrecy, even though they didn't 
bewitch the car, Arthur did.)  

OTOH, if there's an "appeals process" when one is unjustly accused 
of breaking the law (as Harry was unjustly accused) Harry didn't 
investigate this; as someone who's grown up with the Dursleys, this 
is probably force of habit.  It never mattered what he did as a 
child, he was tried, convicted and sentenced before he could do 
anything about it.  As far as he knew he had nothing to do with his 
hair growing back and also didn't know how he wound up on the roof 
when Dudley's gang was chasing him.  Having grown used to being a 
victim of injustice, he evidently didn't try to convince someone at 
the Ministry that he hadn't performed the levitating charm, that it 
was a house-elf instead.  As no one grassed on the twins or 
Hermione, they didn't get in trouble.

--Barb
 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Mon Apr 22 19:30:08 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:30:08 -0000
Subject: Draco and redemption potential (long)
In-Reply-To: <55.25ef8956.29f19159@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aa1oc0+1u5a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38053

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/19/2002 11:03:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> lucky_kari at y... writes: 
> > 
> > Now, whether he can come back is another question. But I think 
he's 
> > already crossed the crucial line.
> 
> What crucial line is that? The Line of Saying Obnoxious Things? The 
Line of 
> Being Cruel?  Or the Line of Coping With Things One Cannot Really 
Comprehend 
> by Joking About Them, which a lot of teens then would've crossed 
>after 9/11. 

Having just experience a young teenager crossing the crucial line a 
few days ago, I'll probably be extremely emotional about this.

My good old brother Stephen, who is learning to control his temper, 
but can't keep out of arguments had a very nasty Draco-like experience 
recently.

One of his classmates said something like, "Oh, that's so Jewish," in 
which "Jewish" meant "idiotic." Stephen and several other classmates 
took them up on that, along the lines of "Excuse me? What are you 
saying? Decent human beings don't talk like that." 

This person then turned on my brother and said, "Are you Jewish?"

My brother, being a little too honest, said, "No. I'm not, but my 
ancestors were, and my last name's Jewish."

"I hate you. I hope you'll die too with all the Jews."

That is crossing the line, in my opinion. That is evil. I don't care 
if it's a teenager who says it. It put a chill down my spine when I 
heard it, given the current climate of anti-Semitic violence. And, 
it's about the same thing as Draco says.

Now, it puzzles me that Draco redemptionists don't really want him to 
have anything to be redeemed from. 

> ANd I also don't really think that it's a significant degree of 
cruelty for 
> him to have been set against Hagrid after Buckbeak struck him in 3rd 
year. 

Well, I agree there. Too bad Buckbeak had to suffer for Hagrid's 
stupidities.

Eileen




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Mon Apr 22 19:42:05 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:42:05 -0000
Subject: Powerful Weasleys (WAS: "Get The Golden Egg"  Plot Hole!)
In-Reply-To: <KMBPCAPLLGNEFCAA@mailcity.com>
Message-ID: <aa1p2d+d7h5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38054

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hana" <gohana_chan02 at l...> wrote:
> >I'd like to add a new spin to this (I hope it's new
> >anyhow). I absolutely agree with Jo, but wanted to
> >point out that the Weasly's have been thus far
> >portrayed as the cuddly, earthy-type wizards. However,
> >I am betting that they are extremely powerful wizards
> >who played a big part in the previous battle with
> >Voldemort and will be instrumental in the next
> >'chapter'. 
> >
> >Sop
> 
> I'd have to agree with this.  Dumbledore did ask if he could count 
on Molly and Arthur (GoF, 617) for the tasks ahead, and I think that 
he would have avoided that if they weren't powerful.  

Right on! Repeat with me.

MOLLY vs. MRS. LESTRANGE!
MOLLY vs. MRS. LESTRANGE!
MOLLY vs. MRS. LESTRANGE!

If we say it enough times, it will come true. :-)

Eileen




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Apr 22 22:11:49 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:11:49 -0000
Subject: Father figures or mentor or just plain teacher
In-Reply-To: <aa148o+6odp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa21r5+elc0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38058

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "siriusgeologist" <lrcjestes at e...> 
wrote:
>>>> why do we need to squish Snape into a father 
 figure role at all?  That is obviously not his intent and not 
 anything Harry would welcome in the least.  I think this was my 
initial question.  Yes Snape may do Harry some good in his 
efforts to teach and train and make Harry cautious, etc.  But why 
oh why does  this have to be translated into some sort of either 
benevolent or  malevolent fatherly figure.
<<<<

Because Harry is so emotionally engaged with Snape. He's had 
other teachers he doesn't like, such as Trelawney and Lockhart, 
and there are other people he hates, but Harry doesn't imagine 
grinding their faces into pulp or putting the Cruciatus curse on 
them. Likewise, Snape has a conflicted relationship with Harry: 
there are other students he bullies, but he hasn't done anything 
to save *their* lives.

By Book 4, Harry's almost completely disengaged from Vernon 
emotionally, which proves that he *could* disengage from Snape 
if he wanted to. He doesn't.  That relationship is strong enough 
to have its effect on how Harry himself will behave as a parent. I 
can certainly imagine that Harry, should he become a father, 
might  find himself channeling Snape in moments of stress, 
much to his dismay. But Snape also provides a positive role 
model for fatherhood.

Others have  pointed out that so far Sirius and Lupin haven't had 
any real conflict with Harry. He's been willing to accept all their 
judgements, despite some mild resentment.  I wish, as a parent, 
that I were always so convincing and my children were so 
receptive.  But because children have the right to be kids, and 
refuse to see reason even when it is pointed out to them,  a 
parent sometimes has to thwart the child. To be an effective 
parent one  has to be willing to endure some bitterness and 
some shrill yells of "I hate you!" without giving in or giving up. 
Who's modeling that behavior? Snape.
 

Pippin




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Mon Apr 22 22:53:46 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:53:46 -0000
Subject: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <aa15bb+2drb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa249q+bpqk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38059

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> > > Tex said:
> > > > My gues is that when he gets a "clean" shot at Harry, the AK 
> > > > will reflect back on him, as it did in Godrick's Hollow.  
> > > > Voldemort tells his death-eaters that he became less than a 
> > > > ghost.  What might be less than a ghost? Perhaps those
shadows 
> > > > that fly out of a wand in a PI?  SO, how to get rid of 
> > > > Voldemort once and for all, once he is in that that shadow 
> > > > state?  Would a Delitrius spell do it?
> 
> What on earth is a Delitrius spell?  I don't believe that's in any 
> of the books.  

I mispelt it, but
>From the lexicon, Encyclopedia of spells:
Deletrius:

           Erases the ghost images of spells revealed
           by the Priori Incantatem spell. Possibly
           can be used to remove other spell effects as
           well. 

                  Amos Diggory uses the Deletrius spell to erase
                  the ghost image of the Dark Mark he had
                  caused to be emitted from Harry's wand
                  (GF9). 

I was surpised at its use, myself.  I just expected the image to 
fade away, like smoke.  The images evidently have some 
substance more than mere smoke.

>Voldemort isn't said to be less than a ghost, he is 
> said to be "less than spirit."  We might associate a spirit with a 
> ghost, but I suspect it is a technical term the definition of which 
> has not been made clear by JKR.  

Point taken.  I doubt the AK alone, whether cast directly or 
bouncing off Harry,  will kill Voldemort for good. We may 
need something else for that. That's why I was looking at
deletrius.

> And there is no evidence that an 
> Avada Kedavra spell would behave any differently from any other 
> spell were Voldemort to cast it on Harry; he had absolutely no 
> problem putting the Cruciatus Curse on him, after all, once he had 
> used some of Harry's blood to regain his body.

Harry broke out of the Imperius curse.  But then, so did both 
Crouches, sort of.  If we are to believe Crouch/Moody,  Voldemort
used the AK on baby Harry, and it bounced.  Voldemort thinks 
the AK will work on Harry, now.  We have no reason to be sure.  
We have to wait for Voldemort to catch Harry with his wand
down.

Tex





From mike_wiltse at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 21:45:11 2002
From: mike_wiltse at yahoo.com (mike_wiltse)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:45:11 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat/Likeable Slytherin
In-Reply-To: <9a.24634628.29f4eeeb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aa2097+tr6o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38060

When I think about the sorting hat and what its role is I have to 
think about what what goes into making the school what it is.  There 
are pehaps 200 children there at one time.  The children need to be 
split up among 4 houses, put where they will belong the best.  

Lets asume 28 new kids were starting school, and all 28 students 
would fit perfectly into Gryfindor.  The hat would not put them all 
there.  Its job is to sort them into 4 houses first.  People who know 
where the want to go and fit the profile take very little effort.  
Where as people who dont know where they want to be, and dont 
imidiatly fit one profile take longer.  Think of Hermonie, she fits 
the Raven Claw Ideal more than the Gryfindor.  Try balancing out her 
traits she should not have been in Gryfindor.  She was put where she 
best fit and there was room.

People like Neville who shows few signs of Gryfindor trates may 
simply be the ones left over who were closest to the ideal and needed 
to fill the spot, even though he was more like a hufflepuf.
This would explain why in the middle of Voldemorts riegn Peter was 
put into Gryfindor, Slytherin was out of room.

And as to Harry being considered for Slytherin, the sorting hat was 
just having fun.  Teasing Harry about Slytherin just because he didnt 
want to go there had to be immense fun for a hat that would be 
sitting on a shelf for another year.

Enough rambling, after reading everyones thoughts i felt I should 
share mine.

"Mike Wiltse"




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Apr 23 01:34:50 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:34:50 -0000
Subject: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <aa249q+bpqk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa2dnq+tq92@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38061

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:

> Point taken.  I doubt the AK alone, whether cast directly or 
> bouncing off Harry,  will kill Voldemort for good. We may 
> need something else for that. That's why I was looking at
> deletrius.
>

What we need is in Dumbledore's office: "A glass case...held a 
magnificent silver sword with large rubies set into the hilt, which 
Harry recognized as the one he himself had pulled out of the 
Sorting Hat in his second year. The sword had once belonged to 
Godric Gryffindor, founder of Harry's House."
--GoF ch. 30

Anton Chekhov is supposed to have said that if you hang a gun 
on the wall in the first act, it must fire in the third. If that sword 
doesn't prove to be Voldemort's bane, I'll eat my laptop.

Pippin




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Apr 23 02:49:05 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 02:49:05 -0000
Subject: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <aa2dnq+tq92@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa2i31+g299@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38062

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> 
> > Point taken.  I doubt the AK alone, whether cast directly or 
> > bouncing off Harry,  will kill Voldemort for good. We may 
> > need something else for that. That's why I was looking at
> > deletrius.
> >
> 
> What we need is in Dumbledore's office: "A glass case...held a 
> magnificent silver sword with large rubies set into the hilt, which 
> Harry recognized as the one he himself had pulled out of the 
> Sorting Hat in his second year. The sword had once belonged to 
> Godric Gryffindor, founder of Harry's House."
> --GoF ch. 30
> 
> Anton Chekhov is supposed to have said that if you hang a gun 
> on the wall in the first act, it must fire in the third. If that
sword 
> doesn't prove to be Voldemort's bane, I'll eat my laptop.

Heh... Yeah, that sword.  

Snuffing a wand-waving Voldemort with a sword would be like
sucker--punching.  But, hey, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I wonder if the sword is magic in any way. I wonder if, for 
instance, it could finish decapitating Nearly Headless 
Nick -- which would finish his "unfinished business" and send him
on his Next Great Adventure (c).  I see him "Assuming the Position"
at the Gryffindor table in the Great Hall, in front of the whole
school, and Harry doing the chop.  Then Myrtle could be the 
Gryffindor Ghost.  

I was dissapointed Harry didn't get to keep the sword.

Of course, if Harry dies, he and Myrtle could be a --ship.  She's 
already expressed an interest.

Tex

What house was she in, anyway? She reminds me sort of Hermione,
early in SS/PS, hiding in the bathroom and meeting a monster.





From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com  Tue Apr 23 03:18:33 2002
From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (L. Terrell Gould, III)
Date: 22 Apr 2002 20:18:33 -0700
Subject: Snape's Secret Snogging (SHIP), and Wizarding World Weirdos (I
    love alliteration)
Message-ID: <20020423031833.28886.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38063

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020422/95e2db6c/attachment.ksh>

From Ali at zymurgy.org  Tue Apr 23 08:41:24 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:41:24 -0000
Subject: underage wizards doing magic, family protection, post-schooling
In-Reply-To: <aa1nvq+d71l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa36nk+u4bm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38064

> > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" <adatole at y...> wrote:
> > > First, I think we need to keep in mind that MOM is not exactly 
> > > stating that underage wizards should not perform magic. More to 
> > > the point, they are saying that underage wizards cannot perform 
> > > magic that would give them away to Muggles. 
> I said:
> > > Actually, I disagree with you here. The letters they receive at 
> > the end of PS/SS tell them not to use magic in the holidays. When 
> > Harry receives his reprimand from the MOM for the "pudding 
> > incident" it is because he contravened the law against using 
magic 
> > in front of Muggles - AND because as an underage wizard he was 
not 
> > allowed to use magic outside school.
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:

> No, he was reprimanded because someone TOLD the MoM that he'd done 
> it (probably Dobby, still trying to find a way to keep Harry from 
> going back to Hogwarts).  The Ministry seems to work on an honor 
> system to a certain extent when it comes to the underage magic law 
> and the laws against letting Muggles see magic, but if someone rats 
> on you you're in big trouble.  If no one tells the Ministry 
> Hermione, Ron, the twins, etc. have been doing magic and they don't 
> hear of it through the Muggle news, no one seems to get in 
trouble.  
> (Remember--when Ron and Harry arrive at Hogwarts after smashing the 
> car into the Willow, it's all over the Evening Prophet that Muggles 
> all over the country spotted a flying car.  This is a blatant 
> violation of the law requiring secrecy, even though they didn't 
> bewitch the car, Arthur did.)  
> 
>Sorry, by trying to respond to one thread, I've inadvertently caused 
another. I know that Dobby was responsible for the hover charm, but 
I  was trying to show that Harry got in trouble for under-age 
wizardry - as well as doing magic in front of Muggles - the fact that 
he didn't actually do it, wasn't my issue. Whilst it is possible that 
Dobby might have told the MOM, and that's how Harry "got found out", 
I personally think there's more to it then that. Who spilled the 
beans on Harry blowing up Aunt Marge, for instance? I imagine that to 
some extent the issue of Harry getting caught is a plot devise, and 
we shouldn't worry too much about the inconsistencies, but heh! it's 
been nearly 2 years now!

ALi




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Tue Apr 23 09:03:28 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:03:28 -0000
Subject: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <aa2dnq+tq92@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa3810+q1dn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38065

This post is also, in a tangential sort of way, a response to Philip 
Nel's and Luke's questions of yesterday, at least it touches on some 
literary parallels and, given that I know very little about it, 
archetypal literature.  (I wonder if an explanation of the term is 
required?)

Pippin wrote:

> Anton Chekhov is supposed to have said that if you hang a gun 
on the wall in the first act, it must fire in the third. If that 
sword [Gryffindor's] doesn't prove to be Voldemort's bane, I'll eat 
my laptop.

That is very appealing, but it somehow puts the symbol before the 
substance.  In the books, Voldemort is the personification of evil 
(Dumbledore has made plain in PS that he is not the essence of evil), 
so the first question is, what will eventually be done about him?

I think it could be argued that, for want of a better phrase, the 
resolution of the Voldemort problem will define what the series is 
seen to be about in retrospect.

Killing him is one answer, but not the only one.  Even if he is 
killed, it won't necessarily be in a duel with Harry, as frequently 
seems to be assumed, even though three out of four books have ended 
thus.  Other plausible possibilities, with literary/RL parallels are:

suicide (eg Hitler);
being dissolved in his own evil, or caught in his own trap (think 
Willow);
having his essence magically undone at a remote location (Sauron is 
the most familiar example, but it's fairly common in literature);
repenting (usually conveniently followed by death, though IMO this is 
not absolutely necessary - think Darth Vader, or the apostle Paul);
being absorbed by good into a higher unity for which his contribution 
is necessary (Wizard of Earthsea).

Implausible (IMO) possibilities are:

the WW reaches a political compromise with V;
V goes his way and the rest of the WW go theirs - a true postmodern 
ending;
he carries on as shadow in the forest;
he wins that duel;
Harry and friends realise 'there is only power, and those too weak to 
seek it';
war unending (Manicheanism made flesh);
V is shunted off into a parallel universe more suited to his 
temperament (sort of like Andre Norton's Witch World);
everybody dies (Shakespeare);
he is transfigured into a baby and time-turned back to 1927, Little 
Hangleton, to endlessly repeat the cycle (this means he is not really 
a descendent of Salazar Slytherin; Harry Harrison's Stainless Steel 
Rat Saves the World, Grounhog Day).

Many of the above endings could involve Gryffindor's sword.  Each one 
would imply a different message about the place and destination of 
evil in the world.

David




From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk  Tue Apr 23 09:26:28 2002
From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (edisbevan)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:26:28 -0000
Subject: Pettigrews magical hand
In-Reply-To: <002801c21a37$01031d60$d401a8c0@bennew>
Message-ID: <aa39c4+ufuh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38066

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ben Leigh" <ben.leigh at c...> 

>I think that LV won't be able to interfere with Peter repaying his 
debt to Harry, however strong and powerful he may be.
> ...Dumbledore said to Harry "One day you may be very glad that you 
> ved Pettigrews life take my word for it" and goes onto saying 
something like this is magic at its very deepest and is impenetrable".


Just a thought - suppose LV deliberately  saves Harry's life at some 
point, thus putting Harry under  Life Debt to LV. What happens then?

Edis




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 23 10:49:17 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 03:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Barty Jr., Animagus HG, Flamel, James, lots o' Draco, Snape, etc.
Message-ID: <20020423104917.44551.qmail@web20305.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38067

Sorry, that subject line is so all-inclusive as to be
useless, but it was either that or title this
"everything but the kitchen sink."   Sorry for the
messed-up formatting, too.  My e-mail is being
uncooperative.  If it's really awful I'll delete this
post, tediously reformat, and resend.

Cast your minds back to ancient history (in HPfGU
terms=10 days ago) to recall this query by Charis
Julia: 

   
>    Was he simply putting on an extremely convincing
show, or was he actually 
>    innocent of this particular charge? We know he's
an excellent actor of 
>    course and he certainly was a most devoted DE,
but, well, oh, he's just
>    so * convincing*, hang it all! 

 I'm on the fence as to whether he was guilty of that
crime, but either way,

 he may be so convincing because he really is stunned
that his father would send him to Azkaban.  Part of
his flirtation with (or full-fledged involvement with)
the DEs may have been encouraged by a certainty that
with his high Ministry connections, he'd never be
seriously punished.  And now he's facing a life
sentence in Azkaban, straight from his father's lips
and despite his mother's sitting right there.  No
wonder he freaks. 

 Tabouli wrote: 

>    I'm pretty sure that if the Marauders managed the
Transfiguration spell
>    in 
>    fifth year, Hermione should have no trouble. 
>However, I'd also say
>    she'd 
>    need a pretty urgent reason for doing so, given
the strong position
    she's 
    taken against illegal Animagi such as Rita
Skeeter. 


 She could register.  AFAWK there's nothing wrong with
a student becoming an

 Animagus; it was WPP's secrecy that was the problem. 

 Brian wrote: 

  
    
>    No muss, no fuss, Nicholas Flamel, *only* known
>immortal in the whole
>    world 
    - muggle or wizard - is just going to relenquish
his immortality?!? 
    Because Dumbledore had a talk with him...?!  
Right then.  I have a 
>    difficult time believing that scene as presented.
> I think there's more

>    left unsaid than said. 


 Maybe so, but if Flamel doesn't die fairly soon after
PS/SS (which could 
 mean several years, I grant you), then Dumbledore's
speech about accepting 
 death goes down the tubes.  And if there's one
ironclad rule of HP 
 prediction, it's that Dumbledore's wise summing-up
speeches are never
 wrong. 

  
    
>    665 years of "affairs" to set in order would be a
lengthy task in    itself, 
>    not likely accomplished overnight. 


> Ah well, the kids have been dead since the
>mid-fifteenth century, and Nicolas and Perinelle
>haven't been doing anything but going to the opera
> and taking strolls around the garden for the past
few centuries . . . what's to set in order?  Remind
the neighbors that they promised to take in the cats,
pay your bill to Wizarding Water and Power, and
expire.  ;-) 

 David wrote: 

 
>    Certainly, in the priori incantatem scene, it is
James he is thinking of, though we don't exactly know
why. 


 (the context was ". . . as opposed to Sirius.") 

 No way to *exactly* know why, but the gist seems to
be that he's about to 
 die.  Voldemort has told him in the past (PS/SS 17)
that his father "put up

 a courageous fight," and he repeats now,
"straight-backed and proud, the
 way 
 your father died" (34).  Harry has the same thought
and it's one of the 
 thing that saves him.  "[He] was going to die upright
like his father, and 
 he was going to die trying to defend himself, even if
no defense was 
 possible . . . " 

 Heidi wrote: 

> There's a hint at the end of GoF that there are
rumors 
    flying that Harry was somehow involved in Cedric's

    death in a way other than the horrible "accident"
of 
    having him grab the Cup at the same time as he
did. 
    It's entirely possible that Draco and other
students 
    think that Harry was to blame. 


 This is a really interesting possibility (about
Draco, not the other students).  I wonder why his
taunt of Harry doesn't take that form, then, 
 since it's such a powerful weapon to use against
Harry.  Instead he seems
 to 
 think that Harry is exactly where he's always been,
firmly on the good
 side, 
 and that Cedric's death was caused by Voldemort, pure
and simple.  But it 
 may be that he thinks Harry is to blame somehow. 

 I do think that everyone else in school is very
likely suspicious of Harry, though Dumbledore's speech
would have mitigated it.  After all, the DP runs a
story about how dangerous he is, how Parseltongues are
all Dark wizards, etc., and then that evening Cedric
is killed with Harry at his side.  Hmmmm.  Of course,
if they were at school Harry's 2nd year, they know
that Draco's insinuations about his having Petrified
people are horse hockey (unless they 
 think Harry's pulling the wool over Dumbledore's
eyes). 

 Rita the Catlady wrote: 
 
>   the thing that troubles me MOST about canon Draco
is that that crack
    about 
    "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well -- second
-- Diggory was the
    f--" 
    is so STUPID! You just DON'T nitpick and correct
yourself in the middle
    of 
    making dramatic threats (or warnings). 


 ROTFL! 

 Actually, in all seriousness, I think this is a great
bit of writing and 
 characterization by our Jo.  It's such a twisted way
to say it--to reflect 
 on one's evil cliche (Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers
First!) and see how one 
 can bring up an excruciatingly fresh murder in a
nastily casual way.  Same 
 as his "bet you five Galleons the next one dies" in
CS. 

 Ritadear wrote: 

     
>    I noticed a similar thing in PoA, when Snape was
yelling at Harry for
    his 
    head being seen at Hogsmeade.  Everything Snape
said was true, that
    folks 
    were going out of their way to protect him, yet he
is so arrogant that
    he 
    risks going there anyway.  When Snape said it to
him, he reacted 
    defensively with anger, but then when Lupin said
basically the same
    thing 
    to him (in a different way), he was receptive to
it and even felt
    guilty. 
    Snape just isn't willing to coddle Harry and his
ego when pointing out
    his 
    bad judgement. 


 [Marianne responded to this, but I have a slightly
different take so I'll 
 keep it in.] 

 I agree completely up to your last sentence.  It
isn't just that Snape
 fails 
 to coddle Harry's ego; he is thoroughly insulting. 
He calls him "famous 
 Harry Potter," assuming the worst motives of
Harry--that he goes where he 
 wants because he's too good for everyone else and not
because he's just a 
 13-year-old boy who chafes at having to stay in while
everyone else is 
 having fun.  He calls him and his father arrogant and
swollen-headed.  And 
 there's the entire context of their past
relationship, in which Snape has 
 hated Harry unaccountably (from Harry's POV) and
unfairly (from anyone's) 
 since before he laid eyes on him.  Lupin's content is
the same, but it's 
 delivered in a context of respect for Harry and his
parents, concern, and a

 sense of disappointment that Harry doesn't live up to
his best, rather than

 Snape's satisfaction in seeing the worst in Harry. 
It isn't coddling--it's

 damn hard to hear ("leaving Harry feeling worse by
far than he had at any 
 point in Snape's office"); Harry can hear the truth
in it because it's 
 untinged by hatred and personal grudges. 

 Catlady Rita wrote: 

  
>    I am not convinced that Snape intended to teach
Harry better judgment
    than 
    to put himself at risk by sneaking out to
Hogsmeade; I think Snape was 
    simply relieving his own annoyance at Harry. 


 Yeah, what she said. 

 Heidi sarcasmed: 

  
>    I guess on an empirical level, taking someone
else's Remembrall to  stick it 
    (unbroken!) up a tree is worse than stealing
potions supplies from a 
    professor so you can make a potion so you can
sneak into someone else's    dorm room so you can
learn if he's the Heir of Slytherin. 


 Yes, I would say it is.  It isn't just "someone
else's" common room (not, btw,

 his dorm room)--it's the room of someone who has been
rejoicing about the 
 attacks.  H & Co. are definitely taking on something
that isn't their 
 responsibility, being reckless, allowing their hatred
of Draco to influence

 their judgment, etc., but they aren't being cruel and
nasty.  Their motives

 are good (those ends and means again . . . ) 

  
    
>    And it's possible that reporting a teacher to a
staff member for being 
    involved in a plot to steal a valuable stone is
not as bad as trying to
    get 
    a teacher fired from his position for
incompetence. 


 Definitely.  "A valuable stone"?!  Try "one of the
most powerful magical 
 objects known, which, if the person trying to get a
hold of it got a hold
 of 
 it, would return us to the terror and bloodshed of 10
years ago."  And it
 is 
 quite one thing to bring up a complaint against a
teacher for incompetence 
 (which would be perfectly justified, though I think
it's a thin case) and 
 quite another to lie in order to not only get him
fired, but get his
 magical 
 beast killed.  (Also, does anyone doubt that Draco
wanted to get him fired 
 before he'd even started teaching?  His "oaf" comment
is conveniently 
 stacked atop Hagrid's assignment of the biting book,
but it's just what 
 Draco already believed before he even met Hagrid: 
PS/SS 5:  "He's a sort
 of 
 servant, isn't he? . . . I heard he's a sort of
*savage*--lives in a hut" 
 etc.  He hates Hagrid for offending his upperclass
sensibilities and, of 
 course, later, for being connected to Dumbledore and
Harry.) 

> And kicking a cat is certainly not as bad as trying
to get a Hippogryff decapitated, no matter what that
Hippogryff did to you. 

Who kicked a cat?  I took that as a joke.  You know
how I feel about Fred 
 and the puffskein.  If Ron really kicked Mrs. Norris
I'd cross him off my 
 favorite characters list, but all he does is make a
(completely unfunny, 
 IMO) joke about it. 

 The Hippogriff deserves to be put on trial, sure.  He
injured someone and 
 there should be an inquiry.  But the witness is not
exactly telling the 
 truth, is he?  He's lying about the extent of his
injuries and conveniently

 leaving out his role in enraging the Hippogriff, and
the judges are 
 allegedly influenced by someone who managed the most
recent type of 
 situation by threatening the powers-that-were into
doing his bidding. 

  
    
>    Can you show me some scenes in canon which show
Slytherins doing things    (i.e. not just *saying*
things)  in which they're venturing into morally 
    black areas? I guess possibly the scene where 4 of
them dress as
    Dementors 
    to freak Harry out, but they clearly knew they
wouldn't be able to have
    the 
    power to suck out his happy thoughts and make him
see horrible things,
    and 
    they already knew that Dumbledore would be able to
stop him if he fell.



 Oh, then that makes it all right.  I wouldn't mind
having someone make me 
 pass out at all, as long as they didn't also cause me
to die. 

 Draco doesn't know what Harry hears when the
Dementors are close by, but he knows what a Dementor
does, probably first hand (as all the students pass 
 close by the Dementors on the way through the gates);
this isn't a paltry matter of jumping out and saying
"boo!" but an attempt to play on someone's very worst
experience.  I won't offer real-life analogies; each
of us can  think of ours and then imagine someone
deliberately rubbing our faces in
 it.  <shudder>  If someone made a prank out of the
worst thing that ever 
 happened to me, I'd want to strangle him. 

 Yeah, what Draco does is nothing more harmful than a
nasty prank, with the 
 worst likely outcome being the loss of a Quidditch
match, but if HRH did 
 something that mean I'd be really, really
disappointed.  

I suppose that's a good rule of thumb.  If you would
be posting criticism of a particular action if carried
out by character A, then it's probably not okay when
carried out by character B.

 GulPlum wrote: 

>    I don't see any implication that McGonnagal went
into teaching as 
    a career to the exclusion of anything else - after
all, although 
    she'd have been the right age, she would have been
there in Riddle's 
    time... 

 Catlady wrote: 

>   She [McGonagall] would have been a STUDENT in
Riddle's time. 


 It's iffy.  Taking the first Chamber of Secrets
incident as exactly 50
 years 
 previous to CS (we don't know it's precisely 50, but
it doesn't matter for 
 this purpose), Voldemort is 65 or 66 at the time of
CS, while McGonagall is

 70 we-don't-know-exactly-when (interview given
October 2000, 

http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2).
She could be 
 exactly his age, slightly younger (though that seems
doubtful), or more 
 likely, a few years older and therefore no longer at
Hogwarts (I didn't say

 graduated!  <g>).  So the question of whether
McGonagall was a student 
 overlapping with Riddle, a teacher at the time he
opened the Chamber, not
 at 
 Hogwarts at the time he opened the Chamber, or some
combination of the
 above 
 is up in the air. 

 Ten points to Tex's house (Ravenclaw, surely) for the
phrase 
 "sesquicentennial Snape."  LOL! 

 Pippin wrote: 

  
 >    What we need is in Dumbledore's office: "A glass
case...held a
    magnificent 
    silver sword with large rubies set into the hilt,
which Harry
    recognized as 
    the one he himself had pulled out of the Sorting
Hat in his second
    year. 
    The sword had once belonged to Godric Gryffindor,
founder of Harry's 
    House." 
    --GoF ch. 30 


>    Anton Chekhov is supposed to have said that if
you hang a gun on the
    wall 
    in the first act, it must fire in the third. If
that sword doesn't
    prove to 
    be Voldemort's bane, I'll eat my laptop. 

Are you sure you want to promise that?  All those
circuits will stick in your teeth. 

I think this particular gun has already fired.

Amy Z 

Happy Shakespeare's Birthday! 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/



From finwitch at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 21:52:20 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:52:20 -0000
Subject: Rule-breaking/Father-figures
Message-ID: <aa20ml+bo0d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38068

When Harry's rule-breaking..., it's
Book 1

1) Matter of survival (At Dursleys, mostly)
2) Saving someone else(Hermione from troll) or even entire 
Hogwarts/WW.(going for the stone)
3) Standing up for his friend (getting Neville's Remembrall after 
Draco stole it) - Harry has a far better reason for his "rule-
breaking" than Draco (who broke *two* rules, not just one - but 
didn't get caught even when other Gryffindors tried to report him!)

No problem, is there?

Book 2...
1) Survival matter by escaping from Dursleys
2) Having both recent and regular experience of stolen letters, and 
no letter duly delivered to him by any other means than a *personal* 
handing-down by an adult - Hagrid or Molly - sending a letter to 
someone is NOT a reasonable option, as post service can't be trusted. 
The two *must* get into Hogwarts somehow with their trunks. The car 
*is* the only way they see (and Ron's parents -- well, they can't 
know what happened to them, they *do* consider about them: "They can 
apparate") It's simply the *only* thing to do (other than miss school 
entirely, and that'd be worse, wouldn't it?)
3) Stealing potion-ingredients from Snape + getting into Dorms of 
another House -- they do this out of concern to lives of all 
students, they doubt Draco (Malfoy house-elf + the Diary) but, *are* 
doing this thing to learn if it's true - they *are* giving Draco the 
benefit of doubt (if they weren't they hadn't done it - they'd 
probably have done something else).
Giving benefit of doubt they *strongly* suspect with reason, whom 
they are very at odds with - this is a matter that *does* justify 
this - particularly as they don't have other means to do this.
4) And... Then, they *do* save Hogwarts when Harry kills the basilisk.

Book 3...
1) Harry leaves Dursleys due to having been unfairly accused with no 
means to defend himself, except magic or threat of it. It's only 
accidental magic that happens.

2) Hogsmeade: Harry tries to gain the required permission from diff. 
people: Dursleys, Minister of Magic and McGonagall.
Truth is, none of them qualifies as his guardian. Not in a way that 
it counts; Harry had moved away and lived on his own for a while.
In this, it is not fair and just for him not being able to go to 
Hogsmeade when *all* others of his grade do - just because he doesn't 
*have* a valid guardian to sign the note. Lupin is a father-figure - 
one who would be valid - but he lacks the status for it. It's not 
about Harry being excempt for his safety, it's about buraucracy, and 
while there is a reason, well...

And it never *was* about Hogsmeade, not really. Harry was trying to 
escape from the notion that he doesn't have anyone. None to care for 
him. Harry has a *serious* lack of a parent. Dementors and Hogsmeade 
permission make him painfully aware of his lack. He's desperate. 
Lupin acts like a parent when he comes back - but even he doesn't 
fully understand. Harry's trying to find help; tries to explain how 
the Dursleys aren't valid guardians but fails in his wordings and 
isn't even listened to... Not until he discovers that Sirius is his 
godfather, willing to care for him etc. Most of all, Sirius 
understands - his letter clearly shows that; Harry's found *someone* 
to be like a parent - Hogsmeade permission was nice, but finding 
Sirius more so.

3) Well, saving Sirius and Buckbeak from an injustice on Headmaster's 
permission/orders and assistance... what could be wrong with that?

4)the one *wrong* thing: Beating Malfoy under invisibility cloak 
(even when it *was* for Ron's sake).

Book 4--
Well, here Harry does most of his rule-breaking in order to fulfill a 
magical contract he didn't make himself part of and by refusing to 
let even Sirius tell him whom he may befriend himself with. He just 
doesn't realise it - or isn't able to put it in words, but he *acts* 
it.

-- Finwitch





From timregan at microsoft.com  Tue Apr 23 00:16:11 2002
From: timregan at microsoft.com (regant4)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:16:11 -0000
Subject: (algorithmic) Sorting Hat 
In-Reply-To: <aa2097+tr6o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa294b+8o0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38069

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mike_wiltse" <mike_wiltse at y...> wrote:
> ...
> Lets asume 28 new kids were starting school, and all 28 students 
> would fit perfectly into Gryfindor.  The hat would not put them 
all 
> there.  Its job is to sort them into 4 houses first.  People who 
know 
> where the want to go and fit the profile take very little effort.  
> Where as people who dont know where they want to be, and dont 
> imidiatly fit one profile take longer.  
> ...

Would this work in a single pass (as the Sorting Hat makes)? Suppose 
of the 28 new students, all of whom would perfectly fit into 
Gryfindor, the last 10 are heirs of Gryfindor himself (Ron's future 
younger brothers ? dectets ;-). By the time the hat gets to them 
Gryfindor is already full, or nearly so, and they have to be put in 
other houses! Surely some mistake.

So either 
1) The intake is so large that such anomalies are very unlikely (I 
think JKR says that Hogwarts has over a thousand students)
2) The sorting hat is magic
3) The sorting hat gets a sneak look at the students as they arrive 
and so can guess the numbers falling into each house, and set its 
house boundaries accordingly to balance numbers.

I believe it is magic, and that it assigns students to the houses 
they will flourish in. If in an odd year everyone ends up in 
Hufflepuff, then the school has to live with that.







From jenserai at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 23 04:42:35 2002
From: jenserai at hotmail.com (Jenserai Bariman)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:42:35 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: 3 little things / father figures / Slytherin
Message-ID: <F57JJVX7nuQmy2tmuXM00004134@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38070

Catlady wrote:
>I am not convinced that Snape intended to teach
>Harry better judgment than to put himself at risk by sneaking out to
>Hogsmeade; I think Snape was simply relieving his own annoyance at
>Harry.

Fear. This actually fits nicely into Snape being a father figure. I remember 
times I got yelled at by my parents for doing something stupid that could 
have ended up life threatening, no matter how okay I was afterwards. People 
truly were on the lookout for any danger to Harry, and Dumbledore let 
Dementors near Hogwarts, despite the fact that he hates them.

I'm not sure how Snape feels about Harry. I don't know if he was concerned 
for the boys' safety so much as what it would mean if a Death Eater(well, I 
think he did genuinely believe Black was a DE) killed Harry Potter. In any 
case, that was about the worst thing that could happen. The people need 
their symbol.

Catlady continued:
>I was quite horrified by that scene. I read it as OBVIOUSLY Draco &
>Co were intending for Harry to faint and fall off his broomstick
>(altho', if Draco had had a bad Dementor experience on the train,
>explaining why the twins said he had nearly wet his pants, he should
>be intelligent enough to know that the mere SIGHT of a Dementor would
>not produce the psychological effects). They had no way of knowing
>that Dumbledore would be there to save Harry (he does not attend all
>the matches). And, in addition to being willing to MURDER Harry to
>win the match BY CHEATING, how in Hell did they expect to get away
>without being caught?!

Children do things without thinking of the consequences. I've done things 
like that (ok, it usually involved danger to myself rather than others...). 
It is entirely possible that it simply didn't occur to Draco that Harry 
might actually fall.

-Jens


_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com





From peppermintfatty at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 23 03:01:10 2002
From: peppermintfatty at yahoo.com (peppermintfatty)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 03:01:10 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
Message-ID: <aa2ipm+na8t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38071

 I was wondering if anywhere on this board anyone has explored the 
potential of Snape's continual haranguing of Neville being due to the 
fact that Snape feels sorry for him. Snape would obviously know what 
happened to Neville's parents. Snape then would also be aware of a 
memory charm on Neville damaging his memory, if that is in fact what 
is wrong with Neville's memory. I could see Snape knowing what great 
Wizards the Longbottoms were and feeling sorry (in a sense) for 
Neville and thus wanting to somehow prod the potential out of him. 
Someone like Snape I dont think would bully the weakest, least 
talented wizard in his year for no other reason than to be mean. Yes 
Snape is biased, but he has shown no signs of being evil. He has 
tried to save Harry countless times, and is loyal to Dumbledore, 
to the point of risking his life. I just do not see him singleing out 
Neville for no reason. I pretty much don't want to write a huge post 
on the subject if it has already been explored.

~James





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr 23 13:23:44 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:23:44 -0000
Subject: Rule-breaking/Father-figures
In-Reply-To: <aa20ml+bo0d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa3n90+8fur@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38072

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> When Harry's rule-breaking..., it's

> 2) Hogsmeade: Harry tries to gain the required permission from diff. 
> people: Dursleys, Minister of Magic and McGonagall.
> Truth is, none of them qualifies as his guardian. Not in a way that 
> it counts; Harry had moved away and lived on his own for a while.
> In this, it is not fair and just for him not being able to go to 
> Hogsmeade when *all* others of his grade do - just because he
doesn't 
> *have* a valid guardian to sign the note. Lupin is a father-figure - 
> one who would be valid - but he lacks the status for it. It's not 
> about Harry being excempt for his safety, it's about buraucracy, and 
> while there is a reason, well...

While I'm with you on all the other examples, I have to disagree on
this one.  Just because Harry has understandable emotional reasons for
wanting to go to Hogsmeade, doesn't mean he's entitled to blow off the
rules and go.  "I tried to get permission, couldn't, and went anyway"
is not an excuse. McGonagall (and Dumbledore, on whose authority she's
acting) is more than qualified to set and enforce the rules for what
the students in her house get to do, and to decide what needs to be
done to protect a 13-year-old boy who's in her care.  It *is* about
Harry being exempt for his safety -- and not just his own safety,
either; as far as the adults knew, he was being targeted by a powerful
Dark Wizard who has already demonstrated a willingness to kill large
numbers of innocent bystanders.  Yes, the situation was painful and
unfair for Harry.  But there are times when saying "it's not fair, so
I'll just do what I want" is not the appropriate response, and this
was one of those times.  Even Lupin recognized that, despite his
sympathy for Harry.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr 23 13:29:26 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:29:26 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <aa2ipm+na8t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa3njm+cjig@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38073

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "peppermintfatty" <peppermintfatty at y...>
wrote:
>  I was wondering if anywhere on this board anyone has explored the 
> potential of Snape's continual haranguing of Neville being due to
the 
> fact that Snape feels sorry for him. 

People do speculate on this from time to time.  Me, I don't buy it. 
As much as I love Snape, I think a lot of his asshole-like behavior is
motivated by the fact that, well, he *is* an asshole.  Which is not at
all the same as being evil -- that's part of the whole point of his
character.

> Someone like Snape I dont think would bully the weakest, least 
> talented wizard in his year for no other reason than to be mean.

I don't think he's doing it just to be mean.  I think Snape has zero
tolerance for people he considers to be stupid or incompetent,
particularly when their incompetence presents a danger.  I also think
he has no sympathy for other peoples' human weaknesses, and no
interest in excuses.  If he knows about Neville's situation, he
probably thinks Neville should suck it up and deal.


Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From jweaver at s-tec.com  Tue Apr 23 13:46:01 2002
From: jweaver at s-tec.com (jayseeweezer)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:46:01 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #4--Will HP become classic?
In-Reply-To: <aa1d13+cg1b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa3oip+4b6q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38074

Hi, everyone!

> 
> Nigel Newton, the chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing, has 
> predicted the HP books "will still be bought for children in 100 
> years' time."  (Prynn).  Is he merely promoting his company's 
> interests?  Will the Potter novels be classics?   
> 
I think the discussion of whether or not the Potter novels are/will 
be classics is a little premature?we've only seen four of the
seven 
and it appears that after two years JKR has hit something of a
wall?
until the series is resolved I think it's a little early for
judgment!


Jayseeweezer




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Apr 23 14:43:29 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:43:29 -0000
Subject: Wizarding World Weirdos (I love alliteration)
In-Reply-To: <20020423031833.28886.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <aa3ruh+n1bd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38075

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "L. Terrell Gould, III" <lterrellgiii at i...
> wrote:
>     Speaking of being odd. . . . has anyone noticed how most of the 
greatest wizards in the Potterverse exhibit certain eccentricities 
(I love that word . . . . its fun!). Take, for example, Dumbledore,
 who is revered as being most definitely brilliant, and a little mad. 
He, certainly is the greatest wizard of his time. Then there is 
Crouch Sr. He is described as a particularly powerful wizard, and 
he also has his hangups (Yes, keeping a clinical demeanor while 
sending your own son to Azkaban counts). Moody, from what we 
can gather from the fake Moody who is supposed to be a diluted 
version of the real Moody, is certainly a smidgen weird, and he 
was the greatest auror of his time. Snape could also factor into this 
equation, as he seems to be  adept at potions (not to mention 
fooling the great and powerful Oz... I mean Lord Voldemort). 
He, I don't think anyone will argue, is without a doubt standing 
at the edge of a rather dark and foaming abyss of hatred, loathing, 
and melodramatic cape swishing.  I would even go so far as to make 
mention of the gregarious and misunderstood Arthur Weasely's 
obsession with plugs and flying cars. 
>     What does all this mean? Lunacy: The first step to becoming a 
great wizard.
>     Actually, I think that in Dumbledore's case, his eccentricities 
are a sign of his stage of psychic development. No, not 
"Ms. Cleo Psychic", but "psyche" psychic, as in Maslow's Hierarchy 
of Needs. I think very much that D-dore is self actualized. He is 
problem, not blame, oriented. He takes pleasure in the simple 
things. His sense of humour is not targeted at others in hurtful 
ways. He is able to work through adversity with what he is given, 
be it people, place or situation. Yes, Dumbledore has my vote for 
Self Actualized Fictional Character of the Year. 
>     Wait just a second. Dumbledore, it has always struck me, has
his 
hands in most everything that has happened in the story so far 
(or he had a prior, if not preminiscient, knowledge of it), much like 
Gandalf in the LoR and the Hobbit. Funny, he flits back and forth, 
person to person, situation to situation, spreading his will and 
encouraging the outcome he knows must occur. . . . . sort of like 
a bumblebee flitting back and forth spreading pollen to flowers 
and encouraging them to grow . . . . all that, and his name means 
"bumblebee" ("Dumbledore", not "Albus".... that means "white"!)!  
Wow! A connection? Hmmmmmmmm....... maybe just in my mind.     
> 
Please excuse the long quoting, but the reader may need to 
refer to it.  I think you're right about Wizard psychology. JKR 
tells us Hogwarts students study magical theory, but she 
understandably gives us very little of it.

I think the kids spend A LOT of time doing mental exercises to 
develop their magical abilities. This_would_ change_ the_
personalities of the kids.  They wouldn't be the ordinary kids we
see in the books.  Moreover, dealing with magic would involve a
very different world view from that of the kids we know, who
view the world through technology.(even though they may not
know much technology.)

This would make most witchards seem to us mad, or at least 
eccentric.  Think how a computer nerd would look to a 
third-world farmer.

> Ok, this was worth putting off homework, but its off, once again, 
alas, to endless Primate Behaviour papers. Bonobos Rock! 
Hip, Hip, Hooray for Pan paniscus!

Granted, the kids may be able to partition the magical world from
their social lives, (Much as LTG III partitions his HP group
activities from Bonobos(You DO keep them seperate, don't you?)), 
which they may be less inclined to do once they get older.  And 
then, the witchards do get very old.  What would a 150-year-old 
quantum solid-state micro-engineer be like? A little crazy, no?
> 
> 
> vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit.

Nescio ne sum, ergo penso sum.

Tex





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 23 15:05:54 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:05:54 -0000
Subject: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <aa2dnq+tq92@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa3t8i+8b83@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38076

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> What we need is in Dumbledore's office: "A glass case...held a 
> magnificent silver sword with large rubies set into the hilt, 
> which Harry recognized as the one he himself had pulled out of the 
> Sorting Hat in his second year. The sword had once belonged to 
> Godric Gryffindor, founder of Harry's House."
> --GoF ch. 30
> 
> Anton Chekhov is supposed to have said that if you hang a gun 
> on the wall in the first act, it must fire in the third. If that 
> sword doesn't prove to be Voldemort's bane, I'll eat my laptop.

I would suspect that salsa would help microchips' flavor somewhat. 
<g>  In this case, we know about the sword and why it is there, so 
this can't be foreshadowing.  Harry already used this to kill the 
basilisk in CoS.  JKR doesn't tend to repeat herself.  I believe 
this sword is said to be in a glass case now because it is a museum 
piece; an artifact of one of Harry's earlier adventures, like the 
Mirror of Erised (the stone has been destroyed, so that doesn't 
qualify) and possibly the Triwizard Cup may turn up in Dumbledore's 
office as well (perhaps Dumbledore's going to open a Harry Potter 
museum when he retires <g>).  There's plenty of foreshadowing in the 
series, but the sword in Dumbledore's office is more like 
AFTshadowing.  Whatever the downfall of Voldemort (and he will fall, 
I'm sure) we probably won't see it coming any more than we saw the 
Polyjuiced Crouch, Jr. coming, even after the concept of Polyjuice 
potion was introduced in CoS.

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 23 15:32:50 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:32:50 -0000
Subject: underage wizards doing magic, family protection
In-Reply-To: <aa36nk+u4bm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa3ur2+o0j7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38077

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" <Ali at z...> wrote:
> Who spilled the beans on Harry blowing up Aunt Marge, for 
> instance?  

That's unclear.  The first thing Fudge tells him is that "they" (the 
Ministry, I think) were worried about him running away from the 
Dursleys, so perhaps Vernon and Petunia were given strict 
instructions to inform the Ministry through some means as yet 
unknown if Harry ever did such a thing (since he's may be immune 
from someone taking him against his will when he's on Privet Drive) 
and then the whole flap about inflating Aunt Marge came out.  This 
would have happened pretty quickly after Harry thumped out of the 
house with his trunk.  Although I never got the impression the 
Knight Bus ride took all that long, when Fudge is talking to Harry, 
he tells him that the Accidental Magic Reversal Department was at 
Privet Drive "a few hours ago," and Marge was punctured and 
oblivated.  It can't have been the Dursleys telling the Ministry in 
CoS, however, because they were busy being upset about the food all 
over the kitchen, and almost immediately after that the owl flew in 
with the letter from Mafalda Hopkirk (the owl distressed Mrs. Mason, 
who hated birds).

Clearly there isn't an alarm on the the Dursley house in general, 
alerting the Ministry to Harry leaving the building, because he goes 
outdoors all the time (one of the books has him wandering all over 
the neighborhood during the summer, trying to avoid Dudley and his 
gang).  And the Dursleys don't seem to have informed the Ministry 
about Harry going off to the Burrow in the Flying Ford Anglia, 
either (they would have had to admit they were keeping him prisoner 
and starving him and trying to prevent him returning to Hogwarts).

The Ministry doesn't seem concerned about magic going on at Privet 
Drive as long as only the Dursleys are seeing it (frankly, I think 
they'd be happier receiving memory charms when this occurs, but the 
Ministry seems to think that as they are the guardians of a wizard, 
this is unnecessary).  No one bothered checking to see whether it 
was really possible, for instance, to use the Dursley fireplace for 
Flooing before the Weasleys just barged in through the wall, and 
Arthur had to engage in quite a lot of magic to repair things.  
(This, I believe, is where a Dursley-memory charm would have been 
useful to smooth things over.)  This was very careless.  (You never 
know when neighbors could be looking in the windows.)  Why is it 
when a child from a Muggle household proves to be magical, suddenly 
anything goes?  I doubt that the Grangers would have been any 
happier to have the Weasleys tearing up their living room.

As far as Harry's family protection goes, though, in spite of the 
supposed need of this, he lived for some time in the Leaky Cauldron 
at the end of the summer before his third year.  How did family ties 
help him there?

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb




From j-lipton at nwu.edu  Tue Apr 23 16:12:13 2002
From: j-lipton at nwu.edu (Jamie Lipton)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:12:13 -0500
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
Message-ID: <002401c1eae1$a1856660$03fea8c0@death-computer>

No: HPFGUIDX 38078

In HPforGrownups at y..., "peppermintfatty" <peppermintfatty at y...>
wrote:
>  I was wondering if anywhere on this board anyone has explored the
> potential of Snape's continual haranguing of Neville being due to
the
> fact that Snape feels sorry for him.

Firstly, Neville is completely incompetant in Snape's class.  Based on what
we've seen of Snape, this by itself is a good enough reason for Snape to
despise Neville, criticize him harshly, and speak badly of him to others.

Snape feels the same way and does the same things to Harry.  Harry is
(probably) average at potions, so Snape defends his dislike for Harry by
insisting that Harry is arrogant, unmindful of rules, and ungrateful to the
people who try to protect him.  But we also know that Snape really couldn't
stand James (due to one or more of the following: Quidditch, 'the prank,'
general inter-house tension, academic rivalry, or the Lily Evans situation.)

Knowing that Snape holds an multi-generational grudge against Potters, I
think maybe he's holding one against Longbottoms as well.  The Death Eaters
orphaned both Harry and Neville, and where other people show sympathy, Snape
shows hatred.  Maybe he hated the Longbottoms like he hated James Potter.
As aurors, they could be responsible for the
killing/imprisonment/mistreatment of any number of people Snape may have
been close with: friends, family, lovers, etc.  Perhaps they were the ones
responsible for dragging Snape himself in for consorting with the Dark Lord,
since we know that at one point Dumbledore had to vouch for him.

Just an idea.
- Jamie







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Apr 23 17:53:55 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:53:55 -0000
Subject: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <aa3t8i+8b83@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa473j+92n4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38079

I wrote:
>>>If that sword doesn't prove to be Voldemort's bane, I'll eat my 
laptop.<<<

And Barb suggested
> I would suspect that salsa would help microchips' flavor 
somewhat.  <g>  In this case, we know about the sword and why 
it is there, so  this can't be foreshadowing.  Harry already used 
this to kill the  basilisk in CoS.  JKR doesn't tend to repeat 
herself.  I believe  this sword is said to be in a glass case now 
because it is a museum piece; an artifact of one of Harry's 
earlier adventures, like the  Mirror of Erised (the stone has been 
destroyed, so that doesn't qualify) and possibly the Triwizard Cup 
may turn up in Dumbledore's  office as well (perhaps 
Dumbledore's going to open a Harry Potter 
> museum when he retires <g>)<<<

Thanks for the serving suggestion. There is a shop around here 
that says they can make *anything* out of chocolate (they got in 
trouble once for doing chocolate Oscars without a license). I am 
sure they can do a G4 <g> 

But really >>JKR doesn't tend to repeat herself.<<< are you 
kidding? Unregistered animagi, polyjuice, DADA teachers with a 
secret, things getting smashed by the Whomping Willow, Hagrid  
and his absurdly dangerous pets, Neville blowing up cauldrons, 
etc, etc, and so forth. JKR is very fond of  variations on a theme. 
In contrast to the Stone,  that sword has been carefully 
preserved. Unlike the Mirror of Erised, we have been allowed to 
know where it is. I think it is going to be used again, else it would 
have fallen into a convenient abyss, like Luke's first light-sabre. 
 
As to how the sword might be used, rereading FBAWTF, I noticed 
this description under Ukrainian Ironbelly (p 14): " ...extremely 
dangerous, capable of crushing dwellings on which it lands.The 
scales are metallic grey, the eyes deep red, and the talons 
particularly long and vicious." 
Now I ask you, does that sound like anyone we know? 

We know that Voldemort can do  extremely dangerous magical 
transformations. Suppose he turns himself into such a creature, 
the better to destroy Hogwarts? Then Harry could kill him with the 
sword, without raising all those messy human rights/capital 
punishment issues.

Pippin





From jenserai at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 23 17:32:33 2002
From: jenserai at hotmail.com (Jenserai Bariman)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:32:33 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville/Snape Question
Message-ID: <F260DgkALmTwn2QrIi000020b11@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38080

Jamie Lipton wrote:
Maybe he hated the Longbottoms like he hated James Potter.
>As aurors, they could be responsible for the
>killing/imprisonment/mistreatment of any number of people Snape may have
>been close with: friends, family, lovers, etc.  Perhaps they were the ones
>responsible for dragging Snape himself in for consorting with the Dark 
>Lord,
>since we know that at one point Dumbledore had to vouch for him.
>
>Just an idea.
>- Jamie

What if he treats Neville (and possibly Harry) so badly because he feels in 
some way responsible for their parents death? Given Snape's ability to hold 
grudges against other people, I think it could be possible he holds long 
term grudges against himself as well. He was, after all a spy, but was 
unable to inform Dumbledore of the danger to the Potters and Longbottoms 
(yes, I suppose someone else might have screwed up, but I think it's less 
likely). And now, he's faced with the children of these people he failed to 
save, and he has to teach them. Under the circumstances, having been through 
what he has, I think many might react in a similar fashion.

-Jens

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com





From sandirs at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 23 18:24:46 2002
From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:24:46 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville/Snape Question
Message-ID: <F50InblFOdq0nXXEXKE0000a750@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38081

Regarding Snape's treatment of Neville, Jamie said:

Firstly, Neville is completely incompetant in Snape's class.  Based on what 
we've seen of Snape, this by itself is a good enough reason for Snape to 
despise Neville, criticize him harshly, and speak badly of him to others.
>
Point one:  at this point, Neville is not only not very competent in DADA, 
he is a nervous wreck in that class, fearing failure and ridicule.  Of 
course he cannot perform.

I had an angry, vindictive math teacher in 9th grade who used to walk into 
the classroom in a lather, yell at all the poorest math students to get to 
the board, insult us when we couldn't perform, etc., so I feel for Neville.

Such angry frustrated Muggles or magicfolk have no business teaching 
youngsters, no matter what their degree of competence in their subject.  (My 
math teacher had won fellowships, had a masters degree, etc., but when we 
walked into class, you could actually see both boys and girls rubbing their 
sweaty palms on their pants or skirts.)

When you go into teaching, you must expect to teach the gifted, the average, 
and the challenged in any particular subject.

Snape just takes advantage of his position.  Remember what Sirius says when 
he defends Hermione from teasing by Harry and Ron over her efforts on behalf 
of the house elves: that the measure of a person is in how he/she treats 
underlings.

This is what makes Dumbledore a great headmaster as well as a great wizard, 
the kindness, decency, and sensitivity with which he treats all the 
students, in contrast to Snape.

Even starchy Prof. McGonigall has shown herself to be a softy underneath on 
some occasions.  She's tough as a teacher and administrator, but she's fair, 
and will take points off her own school's members as quickly as she will 
take points off a Slytherin, Ravenclaw, or Hufflepuff.

Maybe by the end of the series, if he's still alive, we will find a warm, 
cuddly side to Snape, too.  (Way way waaayyyyy deep down!)

Sandi Steinberg



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Tue Apr 23 18:29:15 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:29:15 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <aa3810+q1dn@eGroups.com>
References: <aa3810+q1dn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1014011267.20020423112915@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38082


Tuesday, April 23, 2002, 2:03:28 AM, davewitley wrote:

d> everybody dies (Shakespeare);

Or as has been suggested before, everyone turns into a Muggle and the
Wizarding World ceases to exist.

d> he is transfigured into a baby and time-turned back to 1927, Little 
d> Hangleton, to endlessly repeat the cycle (this means he is not really 
d> a descendent of Salazar Slytherin; Harry Harrison's Stainless Steel 
d> Rat Saves the World, Grounhog Day).

(...And the _Red Dwarf_ episode, "Ouroboros".)

Then my variation on this is that V goes back in time and fathers
Salazaar Slytherin (thus explaining Dumbledore's little slip-up in
early editions of _CoS_ calling him an "the last *ancestor*")...
I know, far fetched, but intriging... :)

But there's one end for V in my mind that I've heard no one mention
yet... Has anyone considered the possibilty that it will end with V
getting "a little Kiss" (and I don't mean from a girl!)?!

-- 
Dave




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr 23 18:42:53 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:42:53 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <F50InblFOdq0nXXEXKE0000a750@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa49vd+jqum@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38083

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Sandi Steinberg" <sandirs at h...> wrote:
> Regarding Snape's treatment of Neville, Jamie said:
> 
> Firstly, Neville is completely incompetant in Snape's class.  Based
on what 
> we've seen of Snape, this by itself is a good enough reason for
Snape to 
> despise Neville, criticize him harshly, and speak badly of him to
others.
> >
> Point one:  at this point, Neville is not only not very competent in
DADA, 
> he is a nervous wreck in that class, fearing failure and ridicule. 
Of 
> course he cannot perform.

Neville and Snape are really locked in a vicious cycle, aren't they? 
The more Snape bullies Neville, the more terrified Neville gets; the
more terrified he is, the worse he does in class; the worse he does,
the more Snape bullies him, etc.

Sprout and Lupin have both demonstrated that Neville can do good work
in a safe and supportive environment.  But Snape, no doubt, would be
thoroughly disgusted by the notion that a person might need the right
environment in order to do well.  "Competent people can work in ANY
situation, dammit!  None of this spoiling and coddling!  If you can't
work under a bit of pressure, you DESERVE to fail!"

The proper response to this, of course, is to stick Snape in a bright
pink room full of teddy bears and frolicking bunnies, pipe in an
endless stream of "Hello, Kitty" songs, and see how well he works
*then*.  <EG>

> Maybe by the end of the series, if he's still alive, we will find a
warm, 
> cuddly side to Snape, too.  (Way way waaayyyyy deep down!)

EWWWWWWW!  I hope not.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Tue Apr 23 18:06:10 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:06:10 -0000
Subject: Father figures or mentor or just plain teacher
In-Reply-To: <aa21r5+elc0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa47qi+4nk9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38084

Greetings, All!

Carole bemoaned:
> >>>> why do we need to squish Snape into a father
>  figure role at all?  That is obviously not his intent and not
>  anything Harry would welcome in the least.
> <<<<
>

And Pippin replied:
> Because Harry is so emotionally engaged with Snape. (Snip)
> Likewise, Snape has a conflicted relationship with Harry:
> there are other students he bullies, but he hasn't done anything
> to save *their* lives.
>
> By Book 4, Harry's almost completely disengaged from Vernon
> emotionally, which proves that he *could* disengage from Snape
> if he wanted to. He doesn't.  That relationship is strong enough
> to have its effect on how Harry himself will behave as a parent.
>
> To be an effective
> parent one  has to be willing to endure some bitterness and
> some shrill yells of "I hate you!" without giving in or giving up.
> Who's modeling that behavior? Snape.

Following on that, let me point out that whether either Snape or Harry
*wants* this relationship to exist is actually irrelevant. IMO, much
of the process that creates familial roles in other settings is
largely subconscious. Harry's subconscious will fill in the gaps in
his psyche by supplying the behaviour roles of those around him, in a
position to influence his conduct, for good or ill.

Whether it is welcome or intended is not the point. The point is that
as a strong, older, male force in Harry's life, especially one who
represents authoritarian rule, Snape *will* make an impact and fulfill
one aspect of the father figure.

Human beings create family structures around them all the time. Work
is a common environment where people may respond to their coworkers or
bosses--subconsciously--as they do to members of their family. We
can't help but equate personality types to those we know at home.

Harry does that already, when Draco reminds him strongly of Dudley,
and this is one of the factors that puts him off young master Malfoy.
In the future, he may react to strong authority as if it were Snape,
even when it's not. Because he doesn't have what he thinks of as a
'family' anywhere other than school, he will subconsciously supply the
personalities of his teachers and friends in those roles.

He may never consciously realize that Snape fills one of the shoes
worn by a parent-figure, but nevertheless, it's there. [Side note:
anyone seen the movie "Father Goose?" There's a similar conversation
between Leslie Caron and Cary Grant that's been playing in my head as
a result of this thread. She comments that since he's the only man
that her charges (7 girls) will come into contact with, he will be
ipso facto, a father figure. He doesn't welcome that revelation,
either, but nonetheless, it's true.]

Now I must wreak havoc with Luke's really intriguing discussion questions.

Gwendolyn Grace






From sandirs at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 23 19:23:45 2002
From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:23:45 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Finishing Voldemort
Message-ID: <F125maLn7JFhMJoThDs00004411@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38085


>Pippin wrote on Godric Gryffindor's sword:
> >>>If that sword doesn't prove to be Voldemort's bane, I'll eat my
>laptop.<<<


Thank you, Pippin, for reminding me of GG's sword in Dumbledore's office.  
At the time, that description made me wonder about the "Heir to Gryffindor" 
even more than about the "Heir of Slytherin."

Question: does Dumbledore possess the sword because GG died without issue, 
or did the Gryffindor line die out?  Is Dumbledore quietly holding on to the 
sword in trust for the rightful heir?
Was Harry able to kill the Basilisk with Godric's sword because he is Godric 
G's true heir (a la the Arthurian "Sword in the Stone")?

Like Pippin, I believe the sword will be the ultimate weapon against V.  I 
certainly think we will see more of it in the coming volumes.

Sandi Steinberg



>>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Tue Apr 23 18:45:41 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:45:41 -0000
Subject: Dragon Hide, Life-saving, Harry's protection
In-Reply-To: <aa39c4+ufuh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa4a4l+mvhb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38086

Ben said:
> you quoted  Dragon Hide is immune to magic If this is the case how would wizards wanting to control the dragon do so if spells against dragonhide were ineffective?
> 
> Ben
> 
> this is my first post!

Welcome, Ben, to the world of HP posting.

To answer you question, to control a dragon you get several (about ten) 
powerful magicians and you keep throwing magics at the dragon until 
enough seeps through. The dragon hide is not *totally* inmune to magic, 
but it is inmune enough that a single wizard cannot think of doing 
something on it's own - unless he points at the eyes, which is the weak 
spot (the place where there is no hide to protect the dragon)

Edis wrote: 
> Just a thought - suppose LV deliberately  saves Harry's life at some 
> point, thus putting Harry under  Life Debt to LV. What happens then?
> 
> Edis

Don't worry about imposible things: Being LV an Evil Overlord, he 
wouldn't do that ever (since it would effectively grant him victory)
;-) (go to http://www.eviloverlord.com for other ways of ruling the 
world by evil ways).

> As far as Harry's family protection goes, though, in spite of the 
> supposed need of this, he lived for some time in the Leaky Cauldron 
> at the end of the summer before his third year.  How did family ties 
> help him there?
> 
> --Barb

They didn't. If LV had been active at that time, book three (and the 
rest of the series) would have been VERY short. Luckily, he wasn't, and 
the only threat Harry was facing was Sirius Black, which (if he had 
really been bad), would have faced an entire street of wizards, which 
would have veen to much even for him.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Tue Apr 23 20:42:30 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:42:30 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #4--Will HP become classic?
In-Reply-To: <aa1d13+cg1b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa4gvm+p58i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38087

Hey, again.

Well, a lot to chew on is right!

Let's see:
> Will the Potter novels be classics?   What do they share
> in common with other classics?  In your answer, decide how you'll
> define the word 'classic.'  Does it denote 'classic literature for
> children,' 'classic fantasy,' 'classic British literature'?
> Something else?  In defining the term, choose some points of
> comparison.  (Snip) What are the criteria of a classic?

I think I'll start by defining "classic" as I see it. A "classic" is
something that holds up to repetitive reading, can be read in many
different contexts and with a number of underlying implications as to
how its audience receives it, and appeals to a wide range of
audiences. Furthermore, a "classic" is also something that typifies
its genre--while NOT crossing the line to cliche, dull, predictable,
or hackneyed. There is also the test of time, but as Jayseeweezer
pointed out, we don't have enough information about that yet.

Some of these criteria are incomplete within the canon (such as
whether the series will fall back on "predictable" or "cliche" devices
to resolve the plot), but extrapolating from the 57% of the books we
have, I'd venture to say that HP shows every sign of becoming a classic.

Before certain camps (or SHIPS) lynch me, I'd also like to say that
*some* degree of predictability may appear within a story or series
and not affect its "classic" status. When used in moderation, allowing
the audience to know what's coming, or better yet, to suspect what's
coming and have those expectations confirmed, can be a powerful and
satisfying conclusion. However, I think JKR has set up a pattern of
surprising her readers with twists that are nevertheless altogether
foreshadowed and noticeable when read again. Thus, I hope that she
continues in her tradition and manages to avoid the worst of the pat
answers or endings in the books--or at least, that if she chooses one,
she will not choose any more. If she refrains from piling cliche upon
cliche upon cliche, I think she can avoid being labelled hackneyed and
retain a satisfactory conclusion to her saga.

For that's the final criterion and perhaps the most important: a
"classic" must be an overall *satisfying* story. And that satisfaction
must continue, no matter how often or how many times one returns. The
reader need not be *happy* with every authorial decision, but rather
the reader must concede that, after all, it's for the best.

For example, I still am very angry that some of my favourite
characters die in Lloyd Alexander's "Chronicles of Prydain," but
regardless of that, when I put down the last page of "The High King,"
I am content. While there are things I might change, or things I never
found out and wish to know, I am satisfied with the conclusion as the
author conceived it. Does that make sense? It's a key component of the
classic, I think, so if I didn't get that across, much of the rest of
what I have to say won't follow well.

So apologies--let me know if I have to clarify that further, but the
nutshell is: Don't have to like it, but have to be contented with the
outcome. Every time.


Now, the next part of Dr. Nel's question concerns what genre HP
represents. If a classic "typifies its genre," then what genre is that?

I think it's a lot of genres rolled into one, actually. It's humour,
but it's also angst and social struggles. It's fantasy, but it's also
very grounded in the modern world. It's adventure, but it's also about
relationships, family, and love. It's about children, but it's also
about adults. What genre indeed?

Overall, I'd have to put it in "fantasy." Magic, witches, wizards,
dragons...definitely fantasy territory. And after all, fantasy books
must also be about relationships, social structure, and involve some
conflict and danger tempered with a dose of humour, or they are empty
and limp. Children's? No, I don't think so. The first two books,
perhaps, but not the entire series.

The other major components to HP in terms of defining it as "fantasy"
are the wish fulfillment aspects of the story, and the idea of
coexisting but separated worlds. Here, we begin to address indirectly
the "archetypal" issues that Luke broke out into separate questions.

Many tales centre on a "wish fulfillment" concept: who among us
wouldn't like to learn that we are in reality powerful magicians or
princes or heroes?

Another very popular question in literature and film is whether our
world is really real, or whether we coexist with or can travel among
other worlds.

HP combines these concepts to creat a hero who is unaware of his
status in that "other world," and who learns to his delight that he is
much more important than he believed. Here's a very short list of
similar tales:

Labyrinth; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; The Matrix; The
Devil's Advocate; The Dark is Rising; His Dark Materials; Foucault's
Pendulum; The Eight; Arthurian legend (particularly Mary Stewart and
Marion Zimmer Bradley's tellings); The Tower of Beowulf; The Riftwar
Saga; Thomas Covenant; Rose or Daniel in the graphic series, "The
Sandman."

While the platform for revelation may be different in children's books
than in adult novels, I tried to include a fair number of books meant
to be read by adults to show that we don't ever really outgrow the
fantasy.

Luke asked:
> (snip) Are archetypes a 'free
> ticket' to becoming a classic, or do only some archetypal stories
> succeed?  If the latter, why perhaps--beyond the fickle fancies of
> the marketplace--do some succeed and others not?  What in Harry
> Potter's use of archetypes may have caused it to fall in
> the 'successful' category?

No, they certainly are not a free ticket. For proof, look at all the
other criteria of a classic. It's not enough to include "stock"
archetypes and move them about in a pre-determined pattern such as the
bildungsroman or the picaresque or the epic and expect the work to
succeed.

Though another thing to remember is that "what sells" and "what is
good" are two different questions. Harlequin romance sells. Is it
good? Well, it fulfills fantasies, for some. But is it good? Parke
Godwin is good. Does he sell? Only to a very discerning audience. So
you can't completely discount the fickle fancies of the consumer.

As for what in HP has made it successful and good, I believe that's
due to the combination and range of styles and emotions Rowling
evokes. She has a hearty sense of character and can convey a lot of
clues to an audience with great economy. She moves between her
convincing world and ours with agility, and understands how to keep us
with her all the time. Like a good tour guide, we are never too far
ahead, but never dragging behind. She has the elements without making
them cliche, while infusing them with enough life and inconsistency
and reality to be more than mere stock.

>
> 2) People often describe a classic as being 'timeless', and the
> implication of this statement is that whatever appeal the book has,
> it cannot be limited to a particular generation.  (Snip) Does Harry
> Potter contain any possible social
> commentary, or is it more concerned with 'timeless' matters of the
> human condition?  If it does contain any social commentary, is this
> the sort that is only of value if read as an indictment of certain
> present-day issues, or does it continue to hold appeal even without
> such comparisons?
>

Well, I think pretty clearly the books do contain commentary on both
current social issues and "timeless" human issues. When we get to the
elf questions (20 May), we can examine the social/human implications
in more detail, but for now I think it's enough to say there's clearly
a mix. Then again, even in the social category, Rowling chooses
personalities that derive from caricatures (like archetypes but more
intended as parody), and as such will nearly always be recognizable.
Doesn't every family have an Aunt Petunia or Marge? Doesn't every
generation have it's Ken Brana--I mean, its Lockhart? I think these
are people one can identify in one's own life, so that whether or not
the *specific* person or amalgam of persons Rowling modeled are
remembered, the *type* will still communicate.


Luke again:
> 3) Although sometimes classics are 'created', by school teachers and
> university professors who find them of value and therefore add them
> to the curriculum for the sake of their students, the vast majority
> of classics are spread through a form of evangelism which occurs
> between family and friends.  (Snip)  Does Harry
> Potter have the potential to achieve this cross-generational
> sharing?  How might Harry Potter's existing cross-generational appeal
> be indicative of this?
>

Heh-heh. Well, I won't talk about how schools "create" classics,
because it's not really germane to this discussion: I don't think HP
could have enjoyed half its success if it was merely a case of
teachers finding it valuable. Clearly there is something about the
books that appeals to all manner of people.

And yes, I think a lot of it has to do with cross-generational appeal.
I can't speak as a child, but I can say that as an adult, I understood
and sympathized with Harry's plight, just as I can put myself in his
place as a teenager with the world to save. :^) But while I have to
say I *enjoyed* the first two books, PoA really made the series take
off for me. It was always the adults--Snape, Dumbledore, Hagrid, even
Lockhart--who teased me and beckoned me to learn more, to look deeper.
So when we are introduced to Sirius and Remus, two more utterly
fascinating and compelling characters, that's when I really became
engaged. For me, it's the transition of the children from a world that
only matters to them (that is, a world where they are at the center)
to a world that is clearly much more vast than they are, that makes
their journey to adulthood begin. And that in turn is what pushes the
story out of the realm of children's books, for me. PoA begins to let
us in on the nuances of these adult relationships, and the things
going on in the world outside Hogwarts. GoF continues this trend. They
create a need for the children to figure out how they are going to fit
in that much larger, much more dangerous, much darker world. How are
they going to change it? And how much more will we learn about their
elders in the meantime?

Now, a child or young adult reading the book will probably discover
HRH's roles (and possible Draco's, etc.) along with them. He is more
likely to learn from their examples how one matures and takes
responsibility in life. Adults, we hope, already know something about
that, so they are able to remember their experiences *and* anticipate
the choices HRH will make. It's a much deeper relationship to the text
than CoS or SS/PS allows, although to be fair, there are hints of this
treatment in all the books.

I'm going to cut that line of thought off so I can get to the last
question:

> 4) One complaint frequently lodged against Harry Potter (aside from
> allegedly promoting witchcraft and/or not possessing 'true' literary
> merit) is the assertion that Harry Potter is basically derivative of
> its preceeding works.  Are these claims valid?  More importantly, are
> they even relevant?  Most persons involved in the literary world will
> tell you that, while obviously something can be clearly derived from
> other works in almost plagiaristic fashion and/or can be heavily
> dependent upon cliche, there is no story in existence that is
> truly "original".  Consider the difference between a derivitave work
> and an archetypal one.  Which term is most accurately applied to
> Harry Potter?  Will Harry Potter's alleged lack of "originality" be
> detrimental to its eventually becoming classic?  In other words, will
> its more "original" predecessors outlast it, once the newness of
> Harry Potter has worn off, or does Harry Potter hold something
> special to set it apart?


I kept this question in its entirety because the components of it are
important to consider in turn. First, is HP a derivative work? Yes and
no. Does it draw heavily on existing mythos, folklore, and attitudes
about magic? Yes, but frequently JKR twists those assumptions on their
sides and often outright reverses them. Case in point: the Flame
Freezing Charm. Or Broomsticks--taking a popular if completely silly
notion from real folklore and turning it into the sports car of the
wizarding world.

Is it an archetypal work? Yes, definitely, but again, she is not
content to leave her archetypes as "stock," instead developing them
out and giving them foibles as well as hidden strengths.

I think again, the distinction here is not that the work is merely
derivative. It is what Rowling does with what she derives. We still
don't know how it will all work out, but as I said earlier, to
extrapolate based on 57% of the story, it appears she will continue to
hold up some beliefs about myth and legend while rejecting others.

Once again, one can fill a story with archetypes without good results.
And one can derive from sources less "classic" than the original
archetypes and still be successful.

Two brief examples (apologies to anyone who has strong opinions about
these books):

The Sword of Shannarra by Terry Brooks. Total rip-off of Tolkein. All
the required elements are there: elves, an epic quest, warriors,
magic, wizards, dragons, big chief evil dude and even a volcanic
mountain--but the story's a no-go (IMO, of course). Did it sell? Yup.

Jack the Giant-Killer, by Charles DeLint. Cyberpunk retelling of the
fairy tale. Jack is a girl. The Jack stories themselves are retellings
of ancient myths, so they are altered from their original. But deLint
so utterly transforms what you *think* you know and makes it into a
completely new tale, that it cannot fail to win readers' minds. Did it
fly off the shelves? Not exactly. Will it endure? I think so.

How lucky that JKR seems to have found a combination both *good* and
*successful.*

Gwen




From merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 23 18:30:37 2002
From: merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com (Sherlock (a.k.a Merlyn))
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 19:30:37 +0100
Subject: Mrs Figg (was Snape's Secret Snogging (SHIP), and Wizarding World Weirdos)
Message-ID: <F2002BS7QTDVd94wyrv0000107f@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38088

L. Terrell Gould, III said:
"Mrs. Figg's house smells of cabbage. Cabbage? Well, of course, this could 
just be to stress how old she is (I know quite a few "people of age" who 
have adopted a rather curious odor closely akin to cabbage), OR, adding to 
the pot the fact that we "know" she is a witch (the very same Arabella Figg 
mentioned in GoF), maybe the smell isn't cabbages at all, but brewing 
potions!"

following on from that, instead of Mrs Figg being someone Snape is in love 
with etc... What if Mrs Figg is Snape's *mother*? After all, Dumbledore 
doesn't state that the 'old crowd' have to be around Lupin, Black and 
Snape's age.

Steph


"The distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly 
persistent illusion." Albert Einstein

Sade - a play about the Marquis de Sade. Official site - 
http://www.sade.r4f.com


_________________________________________________________________
Download MSN Explorer gratis van http://explorer.msn.nl/intl.asp.





From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 23 21:36:21 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:36:21 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #4--Will HP become classic?
In-Reply-To: <aa1d13+cg1b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa4k4l+ujjc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38089

Hi All,

I've been waiting for this question to come up, which is funny because 
I don't know exactly what my answer is.  I think you're actually asking 
two questions: Are the Harry Potter books classics? And, Will children 
still be reading Harry Potter 20 or 30 years from now?  The latter is 
something I think I can answer, even though the odds are very high 
against me being right.  This is, after all, a discussion about the future 
of a series that is, as another respondant pointed out, only half finished.  
The first question is all but impossible to answer, if for no other reason 
than for the fact that I can't begin to define what a classic is.

When I think of a classic book, the image that springs to mind are the 
Penguin Classics, or maybe The Lord of the Rings, the only book I've 
ever read that I am certain is a classic.  Most people agree that a classic 
is somehow timeless, a work that trascends the limits of its own 
generation, but even that distinction is unclear.  Shakespeare's plays 
were written 400 years ago and are still beloved.  Are they somehow 
"more classic" than the works of Dickens, which have survived over 
less than half that period?  For that matter, there are still people alive 
who remember reading The Catcher in the Rye or the aforementioned 
Lord of the Rings when they first came out. 

I think we can all agree that neither universal popularity nor universal 
critical acclaim can be considered criteria for calling a book a classic.  
Even if we accept that no work is universally liked, if we were to 
measure the value of a work by its popularity, we'd be teaching The 
Valley of the Dolls in schools, and I think I once read that The New York 
Times Review of Books panned The Catcher in the Rye when it first 
came out.  And yet, it seems ridiculous to claim that popularity and 
critical opinion aren't factors in making a book a classic.  

If I had to commit to a definition, I would say that a classic is a work that 
combines some element of the three qualities mentioned with a fourth, 
that of being familiar even to people who haven't read it, of being part of 
popular culture, of appearing, in theft and imitation form, in the works 
that follow it.  And after saying that I would point out that there is no official 
body that stamps Classic on the front cover of any book.  It's a word, like 
masterpiece, that is overused almost to the point of being meaningless, and 
even when the person using it is speaking from great experience and after 
much careful thought, there is just so much of the personal and subjective 
in calling any work a classic.  

I don't like The Catcher in the Rye.  People tell me it's a classic book and I 
believe them, but I don't care for it and I don't get what the big deal is about.  
To ask, so soon after their publication, if the Harry Potter books are classics 
or if they are going to become classics is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility.  
They have no doubt been called that, and will be again in the future, but 
that's just words, people's opinions.  There's nothing *objective* about it, 
and that seems to be the purpose of the people pushing for classic status.  
They seem to want their favorite books to be somehow *legitimate*, in the 
same way that Penguin Classics must be good because they have the familiar 
beige cover.   

(By the way, I'm completely ignoring another kind of classic book - the kind 
that blazes a trail, that introduces a new genre or style, such as William Gibson's 
Neuromancer, a classic of cyberpunk sci-fi.  I think even the most fanatic of fans 
will agree that the Harry Pottr books aren't that innovative.)

Well, that went on for long enough, and now for a question that makes some 
sense to me - how long-lived will the books be?  I'd say the odds are stacked 
in favor of the books surviving at least another generation of kids (and whatever 
the books' appeal to adults today, I think they will survive as children's books if 
only because it will soon be impossible to reach puberty without having read them).  
Children's books have an advantage over adult fiction in the field of longevity.  
Some of the most popular works in children's fiction are decades old - the works of 
Roald Dahl, the Narnia series, Charlotte's Web, and many others.  Children get 
given books, by parents, teachers, older siblings or older aquaintances, and 
usually those books are the ones that were best loved by the adults.  How 
many people have I seen in this group and others, mention that they have given 
copies of the books to many children in their family or acquainance?  And in much 
the same way that Disney can roll out all their old films to the movie theatre every 
few years, confident of a brand new audience, there's a new generation of Harry 
Potter readers being born as I write these words.  

The question is, when the hype dies down, and it will, when the kids who are 
loving the books today have children of their own, will they buy the anniversary 
edition box set for a birthday or christmas present?  Will they be as eager as I 
imagine to share these books with new people?  I think they will, I think the children 
of the people who love Harry Potter today will grow up with the books.  Whether 
they too will love them, and pass them on to their children, depends solely on how 
well the books age.  

On one level, the books seem certain to age well.  There's so very little in them 
that's specific to our times.  In fact, I've always found them a bit old-fashioned, 
in a charming way.  The story of the lost prince is indeed timeless, and the values 
Rowling espouses are just as timeless, if only because they speak out against 
vices that the human race has never managed to overcome.  On the other hand, 
the universality of the story may be what works against it, not because the works 
are derivative, but because 50 years from now, someone might come up with a 
new version of the lost prince story.  If it's any good, it won't matter if the Harry 
Potter books are better - kids will choose the more contemporary work.

And I don't think that would be so terrible.  Nothing lasts forever.   Every work of 
art, ever mastepiece, is eventually consigned to oblivion.  There's very little point 
in being sad about it.  All I want is the chance to share the books with children 
who have never read them before.  I'd like to see their surprise at discovering 
something that's so good and enjoyable, it would be a bit like reading them for 
the first time all over again.

Oh, and also I want not to live to see a world in which, as a poster to another HP 
group once suggested, Harry Potter is a series of classic chilldren's... movies.  
I don't think that's too much to ask.

Abigail





From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Tue Apr 23 21:29:03 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:29:03 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: (algorithmic) Sorting Hat
Message-ID: <FJKNPIMLFHAIGCAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38090

regant4 wrote:

>I believe it is magic, and that it assigns students to the houses 
>they will flourish in. If in an odd year everyone ends up in 
>Hufflepuff, then the school has to live with that.

I personally agree with this theory, but in all honesty, what are the chances of ~everyone~ in a particular year having the same traits?  Maybe one house would get more students, but I think that each house would get at least a few.  Everyone is different, and even assuming that there are only 28 children to be sorted, imagine an average classroom of 11 year olds -- they won't all be scholars, or hard workers, or courageous, or ambitious (trust me I know) -- there'll always be a mix, even if it was a bit unbalanced in certain years.  

The only way I see the hat sorting people by numbers would be if a child would do equally well in more than one house and the numbers for one of the choices were low, perhaps it would put that particular child in the smaller house, but otherwise I don't see how sorting by numbers would work the way JKR has shown the sorting ceremony working so far.

---
--Hana



See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From Zarleycat at aol.com  Tue Apr 23 21:58:53 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:58:53 -0000
Subject: Snape's Secret Snogging (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <20020423031833.28886.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <aa4let+sbk5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38091

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "L. Terrell Gould, III" 
<lterrellgiii at i...> wrote:
..OR, adding to the pot the fact that we "know" she is a witch (the 
very same Arabella Figg mentioned in GoF), maybe the smell isn't 
cabbages at all, but brewing potions! Stay with me here......  Ok, so 
the idea that Mrs. Figg may be very talented at potions, who better 
to attract the oh-so-terribly-lonesome-heart of one....... Severus 
Snape!  (Enter "Aha!"s and gasps of excitement here.) They certainly 
would have interacted, both being a part of "the old crowd" mentioned 
by Dumbledore.
>     So, the bitter and miserly Potions Master is really so because 
of a love separated from him by the duty she swore. . . .  to protect 
the very person he hates so much!  (More "Aha!"s and gasps, if you 
please.)


Not that I want to deny Snape the benefits of a loving relationship 
(even if it is accompanied by the not-very-erotic wafting of strong 
vegetative odors), but I see several potential problems here.  

Mrs. Figg is described as being an old woman.  If that's truly the 
case, she and Snape would not have been students at Hogwarts at the 
same time.  So, whatever her skill at Potions, she would have been 
long gone by the time Snape arrived at Hogwarts.  Unless, she was, 
perhaps, the Potions Master...hmmm. Or unless her current old age is 
a disguise and she's really much younger.

Also, I'm not convinced that Snape was part of the group Dumbledore 
refers to when he mentions "the old crowd."  He mentions names in his 
instructions to Sirius in GoF as if, of course, Sirius would know who 
he was talking about.  Earlier in the book, Sirius mentions that 
Dumbledore trusts Snape, but still seems unsure of Snape's role or 
past actions. I read all this as evidence that Sirius knows who 
the "old crowd" was because he was one of them, but Snape was not.  

I think that at the time the "old crowd" was fighting against 
Voldemort, Snape was either still a DE, or had come back to 
Dumbledore's side and was working as a double agent.  If he was a 
double agent, his identity as such would have been kept as secret as
possible, so I doubt there would have been much of a chance for any 
sort of interaction between Mrs. Figg and Snape during this period of 
their lives.


Marianne, who's also not fond of the Snape-Lily SHIP






From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Tue Apr 23 22:56:57 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:56:57 -0000
Subject: Barty Crouch Jnr
In-Reply-To: <001f01c21a35$2dad0da0$d401a8c0@bennew>
Message-ID: <aa4orp+3cha@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38092

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ben Leigh" <ben.leigh at c...> wrote:
> In answer to Melanie's question,
> 
>   Do we know whether or not Barty Crouch, Jr was a slytherin?  I 
can't remember.
> 
> 
> If we refer towards the end of GoF, Dumbledore says "Its not what 
makes a wizard, but what  one chooses to become, your dementor has 
destroyed a pure-blood as old as any, and look what he  chose to make 
of his life."
> 
> My idea of the sorting hat, though highly magical, I don't think can 
predict the future. From the little we know about Barty Crouch Jnr, he 
was talented, ambitious and hard working so a possible house may have 
been Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff.
> 
> If anyone has any other ideas please let me know.
> 
> Ben 

Oh, Crouch Jr. was definitely a Ravenclaw, imho. Well, he should have 
been. I actually think he was a Slytherin. He had to have been in 
quite close contact with the usual Slytherin suspects to have become a 
Death Eater by the age of 17/18. His father is Slytherin from head to 
toe (as opposed to Draco - that unSlytherinish kid who somehow 
blundered his way into that house.) Crouch Jr. had Slytherin 
attributes, though I expect he would have been a better Ravenclaw, and 
the family thing, combined with Crouch Jr.'s inherited belief in 
Slytherin as the best house, might have tipped him into Slytherin over 
Ravenclaw.

But look at his academic performance and the way he takes to teaching 
after more than a decade under Imperius in his bedroom. Definite 
Ravenclaw material there. Totally wasted.

Eileen




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 23 23:18:18 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:18:18 -0000
Subject: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <aa473j+92n4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa4q3q+47ch@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38093

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> I wrote:
> >>>If that sword doesn't prove to be Voldemort's bane, I'll eat my 
> laptop.<<<
> 
> And Barb suggested
> > I would suspect that salsa would help microchips' flavor 
> somewhat.  <g>  In this case, we know about the sword and why 
> it is there, so  this can't be foreshadowing.  Harry already used 
> this to kill the  basilisk in CoS.  JKR doesn't tend to repeat 
> herself. [snip]
> 
> Thanks for the serving suggestion. There is a shop around here 
> that says they can make *anything* out of chocolate (they got in 
> trouble once for doing chocolate Oscars without a license). I am 
> sure they can do a G4 <g> 

Any time. ;)

> But really >>JKR doesn't tend to repeat herself.<<< are you 
> kidding? Unregistered animagi, polyjuice, DADA teachers with a 
> secret, things getting smashed by the Whomping Willow, Hagrid  
> and his absurdly dangerous pets, Neville blowing up cauldrons, 
> etc, etc, and so forth. JKR is very fond of  variations on a 
> theme. 

I should have been clearer about that.  I should have said that she 
doesn't repeat the climaxes of her books.  All four so far have been 
very different.  And there's a difference between running themes, 
foreshadowing and repetition.  You mention unregistered Animagi.  We 
had two of them in PoA at the climax, but this served to foreshadow 
the one in GoF, who was hardly at the center of the story (and the 
clues were there).  Hagrid and his pets and Neville blowing up 
cauldrons is character-definition (although I wonder whether 
Hagrid's pet foibles are foreshadowing for his eventual fate).  
Things getting smashed by the Whomping Willow is consistency; the 
only things that got smashed badly are the Ford Anglia and Ron's 
wand (both necessary for later developments).  The CoS episode 
served as foreshadowing for the PoA explanation of the Willow's 
origins, and if it didn't beat people about the head in PoA, that 
would have been wildly inconsistent.

The Mirror already appeared in the climax of book one, so it's 
doubtful it will reappear to hide a magical object at the center of 
the story in any other book climax.  The sword was already used to 
vanquish a foe at the end of book two, so it is unlikely to be used 
for that purpose again.  Ron's wand spent the entire CoS 
malfunctioning as foreshadowing for what would happen when Lockhart 
used it on Ron and Harry.  This is unlikely to be repeated.  In the 
climax of PoA we had the unregistered Animagi, disarming Snape 
(foreshadowed by him disarming Lockhart in CoS), a hippogrif, a Time 
Turner and rescuing someone from injustice (this comes closest to a 
repeat, in that Harry freed Dobby at the end of CoS, but that wasn't 
really the climax and it was probably really foreshadowing the whole 
Winky thing and SPEW).  In GoF we had a Portkey we didn't know was a 
Portkey (we had the Portkey in the QWC bit so we'd know exactly what 
was happening to Harry when it occurred later) a dark ritual/potion 
and a duel.  The only one of these likely to be repeated in a 
seventh-book showdown between Harry and Voldemort is a duel, and I 
doubt it will be a Muggle-style duel with swords.

> In contrast to the Stone,  that sword has been carefully 
> preserved. Unlike the Mirror of Erised, we have been allowed to 
> know where it is. I think it is going to be used again, else it 
> would have fallen into a convenient abyss, like Luke's first light-
> sabre. 
  
> As to how the sword might be used, rereading FBAWTF, I noticed 
> this description under Ukrainian Ironbelly (p 14): " ...extremely 
> dangerous, capable of crushing dwellings on which it lands.The 
> scales are metallic grey, the eyes deep red, and the talons 
> particularly long and vicious." 
> Now I ask you, does that sound like anyone we know? 
> 
> We know that Voldemort can do  extremely dangerous magical 
> transformations. Suppose he turns himself into such a creature, 
> the better to destroy Hogwarts? Then Harry could kill him with the 
> sword, without raising all those messy human rights/capital 
> punishment issues.

It would, but for that exact reason it seems very un-JKR.  I didn't 
say the sword wouldn't appear again, just that it would be unlikely 
to be the instrument of Voldemort's downfall.  For one thing, she's 
been there and done that with the basilisk.  For another, unless he 
DOES turn into a dragon or other beast (which is a bit too much like 
the Buffy graduation--wrong fandom!--and not very JKR) I can't see 
Harry killing anyone who's nominally human in such a grisly manner.  

In the end, I think Harry and Voldemort will meet each other on 
their own terms, man to man, and Harry may make him even more human 
than before, which could be his final undoing.

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 23 23:33:55 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:33:55 -0000
Subject: Barty Crouch Jnr
In-Reply-To: <aa4orp+3cha@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa4r13+62c0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38094

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ben Leigh" <ben.leigh at c...> wrote:
> > In answer to Melanie's question,
> > 
> >   Do we know whether or not Barty Crouch, Jr was a slytherin?  I 
> can't remember.
> > 
> > If we refer towards the end of GoF, Dumbledore says "Its not 
> > what makes a wizard, but what  one chooses to become, your 
> > dementor has destroyed a pure-blood as old as any, and look what 
> > he chose to make of his life."
> > 
> > My idea of the sorting hat, though highly magical, I don't think 
> > can predict the future. From the little we know about Barty 
> > Crouch Jnr, he was talented, ambitious and hard working so a 
> > possible house may have been Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff.

> Oh, Crouch Jr. was definitely a Ravenclaw, imho. Well, he should 
> have been. I actually think he was a Slytherin. He had to have 
> been in quite close contact with the usual Slytherin suspects to 
> have become a Death Eater by the age of 17/18. His father is 
> Slytherin from head to toe (as opposed to Draco - that 
> unSlytherinish kid who somehow blundered his way into that house.) 
> Crouch Jr. had Slytherin attributes, though I expect he would have 
> been a better Ravenclaw, and the family thing, combined with 
> Crouch Jr.'s inherited belief in Slytherin as the best house, 
> might have tipped him into Slytherin over Ravenclaw.
> 
> But look at his academic performance and the way he takes to 
> teaching after more than a decade under Imperius in his bedroom. 
> Definite Ravenclaw material there. Totally wasted.

Crouch, Jr. definitely seems like more of a Ravenclaw than a 
Slytherin.  And I don't see his dad being a Slytherin--it seems 
unlikely he could have gotten far in politics with that background 
(or if his son had been put in that house and people got wind of 
it), with the prejudices in the wizarding world, and he was on a 
track for the Minister of Magic when his career was derailed by his 
son being an accused DE.  It wouldn't have been hard for DEs to 
recruit Ravenclaws, though--in fact, I think they probably would 
have been prime targets, as extremely bright people.  Crouch, Jr. 
isn't a Slytherin at heart because his ambition isn't for himself as 
much as for his master--he speaks at the end of being honored by 
Voldemort, but it seems almost like a afterthought.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Draco Malfoy isn't a 
Slytherin at heart.  He's nasty, selfish, ambitious, and he'll do 
anything to achieve an end.  Just because he's not too cautious or 
prudent doesn't mean anything; if anything, it's clear because of 
this that he's definitely no Ravenclaw (the only class in which we 
know he excels is Potions, making him a kind of one-song-Sue), and 
he clearly isn't hard-working enough to be a Hufflepuff, let alone 
brave enough to be a Gryffindor (he's quaking in his boots in the 
Forbidden Forest).  The hat knew before it had touched his head.  
He's right where he belongs.

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Tue Apr 23 23:39:40 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:39:40 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <aa3njm+cjig@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa4rbs+uu8l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38095

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:

> I don't think he's doing it just to be mean.  I think Snape has zero
> tolerance for people he considers to be stupid or incompetent,
> particularly when their incompetence presents a danger.  I also 
think
> he has no sympathy for other peoples' human weaknesses, and no
> interest in excuses.  If he knows about Neville's situation, he
> probably thinks Neville should suck it up and deal.
> 
> 
> Marina
> rusalka at i...

Following the principle Elkins once defined as "Cherchez la femme," it 
should be obvious that Snape was in love with Neville's mother, and 
hated Frank Longbottom forever for being the one that got her. Every 
time he looks down and sees her eyes in Frank's face, he says or does 
something very nasty to Neville. That won't work for you? 

1) I do think there's a backhistory between Severus Snape and Frank 
Longbottom. I don't think it's got anything to do with Neville's 
mysterious mother, but I think there could be plenty of reason for 
Snape ex-death-eater to have hated popular auror Longbottom. In the 
past, Longbottom has been accused on this list by Eric Oppen 
(tongue-planted-firmly-in-cheek) of being Judge Dredd on acid: a 
phrase I particularily liked. :-) Not likely, but I would not be 
surprised if Longbottom was one of the aurors who didn't try to bring 
people in alive. (He was a Slytherin, damnit, according to me) Factor 
in Rosier and Wilkes, and you've got a good backstory. (In the bloody 
ambush theory, was it Moody or Longbottom who finished off Rosier?) 

2) Snape absolutely despises people who he can't save. Half his 
problems with James Potter seems to stem from Snape's inability to 
keep Potter from dying. I would suspect that Snape is somehow involved 
in the whole Longbottom situation, and came too late to save the day, 
or messed something up to ruin it. Twisted reason for disliking 
Neville, but that's Snape for you.

3) Livian Rome again. Whatever Snape's opinion of Frank Longbottom, I 
am quite sure that he thinks Neville should be ready to avenge his 
parents, and instead the kid is fumbling around, "on purposely" acting 
like an incompetent.

To finish, Mrs. Longbottom was not an auror. Crouch Sr. "an auror and 
his wife." 

NM




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Apr 24 00:32:53 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:32:53 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #4--Will HP become classic?
In-Reply-To: <aa1d13+cg1b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa4ufl+940m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38097

Wonderful official question. I've been bouncing up and down waiting to 
get a chance to answer it. 

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "caliburncy" <caliburncy at y...> wrote:

>  Philip Nel writes:
> --------------------------------------
> 
> Nigel Newton, the chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing, has 
> predicted the HP books "will still be bought for children in 100 
> years' time."  (Prynn).  Is he merely promoting his company's 
> interests?  Will the Potter novels be classics?   What do they share 
> in common with other classics?  In your answer, decide how you'll 
> define the word 'classic.'  Does it denote 'classic literature for 
> children,' 'classic fantasy,' 'classic British literature'?  
> Something else?  In defining the term, choose some points of 
> comparison.  If you think they are classics, are we to compare the 
> novels with works by Lewis Carroll?  C.S. Lewis?  Charles Dickens?  
> If not, what would be your point of comparison?  Enid Blyton?  
> Against what other works are we to measure the HP series?  What are 
> the criteria of a classic?

I'll be answering a lot of this later, but I first want to touch on 
what the books are being compared to. Pitching them to a tough crowd, 
I was asked if I would compare them to Lewis or Tolkien or Blyton? 
(Blyton apparently being on the lower scale of things vs. Lewis and 
Tolkien.) And, I said, it's not as good as Tolkien (b/c I'm Tolkien 
nut,) but in a way it reminds me of

1. Tolkien
2. Lewis
3. Arthur Ransome
4. Enid Blyton
5. Roald Dahl 

And the first response I got was, "IT'S NOTHING LIKE ARTHUR RANSOME!"

Very quickly, others informed me that Harry Potter bore no resemblance 
to Tolkien and Lewis, while someone else said that it bore no 
resemblance to Dahl's cutting satire. Blyton was allowed to stand, 
apparently since both Blyton and Rowling write a lot about boarding 
schools and kid-sleuths. And, Blyton, let's face it, isn't the 
pinnacle of children's literature. I loved her books, I still am known 
to say, "Food always tastes better outdoors" on family picnics, I just 
realized right now that I've been thinking of Sirius Black as Bill 
Cunningham, but they haven't got that something which the other four 
authors I mentioned have. That something is..... I have no idea. 
Perhaps it's that they've realized their prototypes so well that I 
know them in real life, whereas Blyton characters to me at least stay 
inside the book, however entertaining.

Judging by my experience, the comparison game will go nowhere. At 
least JKR isn't making a scene about the comparisons, like Tolkien who 
(with entirely too much time on his hands) was publicly complaining 
about Lewis comparing him to Ariosto, whom Tolkien said, he hadn't 
read and would have detested if he did. (Someone has to make a movie 
about Tolkien. He was such an eccentric but likeable character. I can 
just seem him chatting with Dumbledore and Mundungus Fletcher. I 
don't think Tolkien would have really liked HP. He made a point of 
being contrary, but I think it's just his personal style, if not his 
writing style. )

> 2)  Does Harry Potter contain any possible social 
> commentary, or is it more concerned with 'timeless' matters of the 
> human condition?  If it does contain any social commentary, is this 
> the sort that is only of value if read as an indictment of certain 
> present-day issues, or does it continue to hold appeal even without 
> such comparisons?

I once had an answer to this. I thought, when I first read GoF, that 
the ending was relevant but definitely dated. Relevant because it was 
about moral courage, dated because it seemed to be directly about 
appeasement in the 1930s. Both aspects interested me. Now, I'm not so 
sure. It's a truism by now that September 11 has changed the way we 
saw the world, but it is true. I first saw the LOTR movie in 
mid-December, and I began crying in Moria at this conversation.

"I wish the ring had never come to me."

"So do all who live to see such times. But that is not their choice. 
All we can do is decide what to do with the time that is given us."

As a Tolkien fanatic, I'd read that passage a million times and it had 
never really caught my attention. But now, a book written during the 
Second World War was stating a truth for the dark year of 2001. 

Similarily, I am amazed by how prescient GoF has turned out to be. I 
am very glad for JKR that she published GoF before September 11th. If 
afterwards, she would have forever been accused of "making 
connections": something that I expect to see critics saying when OotP 
comes out. We are in a world now where people are accusing each other 
of appeasement: something we thought was a 1930s thing, where our own 
Magic Law Enforcement heads must choose between security and liberty, 
where everyone of us realizes that one day we may see the Dark Mark 
over our own homes. The HP books have become way too relevant. I 
expect JKR is feeling frightened of the reception for her book. It not 
only will contain timeless truths, but temporal truths, and expect her 
to be hammered by those who feel her take on the wizarding world's 
problems doesn't line up with their take on the 'War on Terrorism.' 

I read HP quite a bit the days after September 11, to distract my mind 
a little, though I can't say it really worked. And the line that spoke 
to me was "What's coming will come," and Hagrid's little speech on the 
subject. Whenever I begin to feel irritated with the man, I have to 
remember how much that line comforted me.

Have you ever seen the French movie: "Les Miserables." It's mostly set 
during WWII and tells the story of a moving man and a Jewish family, 
who go through absolutely incredible hardships, to the point where my 
Mom was saying, "Something happy's got to happen or I'm going to 
scream." The story is incredibly labyrinthine and intriguing in its 
own right, but that's not the movie's point. The point is that 
everything in the movie can be related back to Victor Hugo's Les 
Miserables. The Second World War connected with 19th century France? 
Haven't things totally changed? No, the characters learn. Even in all 
its horrors, their time is full of the Valjeans, the Thenardiers, the 
Javerts, the Cosettes, the Fantines, the Mariuses, the Gavroches etc. 
 (The movie does mess up Javert, which as a Les Mis fanatic bugs me.)
What I love about the movie is that the characters begin to take note 
of this themselves. They fall in love with Les Miserables, the book, 
and begin to apply the book to their daily lives. About to secretly 
flee with his wife across the Swiss border, Ziman tells Fortin, "Don't 
let the Thenardiers get you down. They're even worse than the 
Germans." Fortin reflects that his mother was Fantine, and he was 
Cosette and so on. 

That struck me as so true. On the spot, my mother and I established a 
new rule for determination of the classics. Classics are stories 
which, once read, you begin to use to make sense of your life. If 
you're ready to cry, after losing a battle over something very dear to 
you because of the lack of supporter from a bureacracy with no 
backbone, and you say, "Cornelius Fudge has ruined everything again," 
(and this happened to my mother) I think HP is on its way to being a 
classic.

>Does Harry 
> Potter have the potential to achieve this cross-generational 
> sharing?  How might Harry Potter's existing cross-generational 
appeal 
> be indicative of this?

Well..... First of all, I don't think the cross-generational thing is 
entirely off the ground yet. Way too many adults who don't bother with 
kids' books, and are buying their kids HP because the HP books are 
hyped. Yet, growing are the number who are already buying kids books 
because they want the kids to enter the experience. Even if they 
haven't read the books, I've heard many adults say they are buying 
them because they want their children to experience them, as they 
experienced Narnia etc. in their own childhood. It's not the kids who 
will keep HP going, in the long term. Too many children, 
unfortunately, go through a stage where they push away the books of 
their childhood. There is an encouraging section of teenagers (I was 
one of them) who absolutely love HP, but I'm sure you've all met some 
past HP fanatic, who now, at the mature age of 15, goes "I'm way too 
old for that now." The problem's not a new one. If you go to the first 
page of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," you will see it well 
stated. Lewis dedicates the book to his god-daughter Lucy, but 
expresses fear that Lucy is now too old to read the book, because 
little girls grow up so quickly. However, he is sure that one day when 
Lucy is completely grown-up, she will read and enjoy the book, and 
think of her godfather. Adult support is what gets books to survive 
the teenage doldrums, imho.

> 4) One complaint frequently lodged against Harry Potter (aside from 
> allegedly promoting witchcraft 

Let me interrupt and predict that the people who are now saying they 
promote witchcraft will be completely replaced in 50 years by people 
who have accepted them as good  moral children's literature, and will 
have turned their criticism on some other book. Work after work has 
gone that route. Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer for example.

>is the assertion that Harry Potter is basically derivative of 
> its preceeding works.  

I like this one. I always ask, "How?" and get some answer about Greek 
Mythology and the fight of good vs. evil. plus a little fluff about 
English boarding school novels.

>Most persons involved in the literary world 
will 
> tell you that, while obviously something can be clearly derived from 
> other works in almost plagiaristic fashion and/or can be heavily 
> dependent upon cliche, there is no story in existence that is 
> truly "original".  Consider the difference between a derivitave work 
> and an archetypal one.

Is it time to bring up the Willa Cather quote about there only being 
three or four stories in the world? I had an English teacher once who 
claimed that everything was about appearance vs. reality or the loss 
of ignorance. We used to bug her incredibly by trying to come up with 
scenarios that didn't invoke either. But, if you think about it, those 
two highly unoriginal phrases are absolutely accurate descriptors for 
the Harry Potter series. 

Gwen wrote:
> For that's the final criterion and perhaps the most important: a
> "classic" must be an overall *satisfying* story. And that 
satisfaction
> must continue, no matter how often or how many times one returns. 
The
> reader need not be *happy* with every authorial decision, but rather
> the reader must concede that, after all, it's for the best.

Oh, I don't know. I'm still very offended over what George Lucas did 
with Star Wars. Nothing can convince me that Return of the Jedi was 
for the best. I find it totally unsatisfactory, and yet I love Star 
Wars. Maybe movie classics are different than book classics?

Well Chesterton's "The Man Who Was Thursday" is a bit of a classic, 
and the ending just leaves my head swimming and my mouth swearing 
every time I read it, but I keep coming back nonetheless.  

Abigail writes:
> And I don't think that would be so terrible.  Nothing lasts forever. 
  Every work of 
> art, ever mastepiece, is eventually consigned to oblivion.  There's 
very little point 
> in being sad about it.  All I want is the chance to share the books 
with children 
> who have never read them before.  I'd like to see their surprise at 
discovering 
> something that's so good and enjoyable, it would be a bit like 
reading them for 
> the first time all over again.
> 
> Oh, and also I want not to live to see a world in which, as a poster 
to another HP 
> group once suggested, Harry Potter is a series of classic 
chilldren's... movies.  
> I don't think that's too much to ask.

AMEN TO ALL THAT!

Eileen




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Apr 24 00:45:08 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:45:08 -0000
Subject: Barty Crouch Jnr
In-Reply-To: <aa4r13+62c0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa4v6k+nj1u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38098

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:

> Crouch, Jr. definitely seems like more of a Ravenclaw than a 
> Slytherin.  And I don't see his dad being a Slytherin--it seems 
> unlikely he could have gotten far in politics with that background 
> (or if his son had been put in that house and people got wind of 
> it), with the prejudices in the wizarding world, and he was on a 
> track for the Minister of Magic when his career was derailed by his 
> son being an accused DE. 

I don't think that there's anyone in the entire series who's so 
properly a Slytherin as Crouch Sr. actually, so we're probably coming 
from completely different ends here. First of all, I don't hold this 
theory that Slytherins in the WW are despised and feared. If Lucius 
Malfoy himself is lounging around the Top Box at the World Quidditch 
Cup, I don't believe that the more innocent Slytherins are the 
wizarding world's peons. Is it too coincidental that if you explain 
Slytherin to someone, and then give a list of several names and ask 
whether he thinks they're Slytherin, that he'll pick all the 
politicians. I've no doubt that, in normal times, the Ministry is 
absolutely swarming with Slytherins. What good are the power-hungry if 
they never get a chance to go for power because people are prejudiced 
against them? Even now, how many Death Eaters are at the Ministry? I'd 
peg Crouch as a Slytherin, and a little more cautiously, Fudge 
himself. Ludo Bagman? I don't know. Much will depend on his future 
appearances. 

>It wouldn't have been hard for DEs to 
> recruit Ravenclaws, though--in fact, I think they probably would 
> have been prime targets, as extremely bright people.  Crouch, Jr. 
> isn't a Slytherin at heart because his ambition isn't for himself as 
> much as for his master--he speaks at the end of being honored by 
> Voldemort, but it seems almost like a afterthought.

Crouch Jr. was recruited in school, though, which makes me feel that 
he was in Slytherin.

> I'm not sure where you get the idea that Draco Malfoy isn't a 
> Slytherin at heart.  He's nasty, selfish, ambitious, and he'll do 
> anything to achieve an end.  Just because he's not too cautious or 
> prudent doesn't mean anything; if anything, it's clear because of 
> this that he's definitely no Ravenclaw (the only class in which we 
> know he excels is Potions, making him a kind of one-song-Sue), and 
> he clearly isn't hard-working enough to be a Hufflepuff, let alone 
> brave enough to be a Gryffindor (he's quaking in his boots in the 
> Forbidden Forest).  The hat knew before it had touched his head.  
> He's right where he belongs.

You're right. He belongs to Slytherin. He's a total failure of a 
Slytherin, imho. In fact, the entire current generation seems to lack 
the ingredients to ever go anywhere.

Eileen, who thinks someone should teach Draco the word "charm"




From nesbitaa at purdue.edu  Tue Apr 23 23:16:08 2002
From: nesbitaa at purdue.edu (oboakk)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:16:08 -0000
Subject: Mrs Figg (was Snape's Secret Snogging (SHIP), and Wizarding World Weirdos)
In-Reply-To: <F2002BS7QTDVd94wyrv0000107f@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa4pvo+478r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38099

L. Terrell Gould, III said:
<<"Mrs. Figg's house smells of cabbage. Cabbage? Well, of course, 
this could just be to stress how old she is (I know quite a 
few "people of age" who have adopted a rather curious odor closely 
akin to cabbage), OR, adding to the pot the fact that we "know" she 
is a witch (the very same Arabella Figg mentioned in GoF), maybe the 
smell isn't cabbages at all, but brewing potions!">>

Steph replied:
<<following on from that, instead of Mrs Figg being someone Snape is 
in love with etc... What if Mrs Figg is Snape's *mother*? After all, 
Dumbledore doesn't state that the 'old crowd' have to be around 
Lupin, Black and Snape's age.>>


Mrs. Figg as Snape's mother...interesting.  And Snape could be 
jealous that his mother abandoned him to go watch over Harry.  I'm 
just imagining grown child Severus still living with his mother...and 
she lays out clean robes for him and makes his bed every morning.  
That's why his hair is always greasy!! Mum used to shampoo, trim and 
style it, but she left and he couldn't do it for himself.

No, no, that's just creepy.  I don't buy it.

Abby





From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Tue Apr 23 22:25:34 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:25:34 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will HP become classic?
Message-ID: <KIPGAFADLIDIGCAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38100

 abigailnus said:

>I think you're actually asking two questions: Are the Harry Potter >books classics? And, Will children still be reading Harry Potter 20 >or 30 years from now?

In terms of the books being read in 20 or 30 years -- I'd have to say that it's a very strong possibility. I know that if I ever have children, I'll read it to them or encourage them to read it (the same goes for any adults or cousins etc that I can convince :))  As a teacher, I'm going to read it/promote reading it/teach it as often as I can, and being near the start of a 30 year career, that's a lot of children who will be exposed to Harry Potter.  The first book is actually one of the course books in my current school to be taught as part of the curriculum. (I'm currently teaching PS to my grade nines :))

I also believe it will still be read, simply because children who hate reading will read this series, especially boys who, on average, dislike reading more than girls do.  This will keep the book popular for years.

abigailnus said:

>The first question is all but impossible to answer, if for no other >reason than for the fact that I can't begin to define what a classic >is.

In terms of it being a classic, I think it depends on the context to some extent.  There is a university in western Canada (the University of Calgary I think, but I don't really remember) that is offering an honours course about the Harry Potter phenomena.  The series isn't even finished yet and people are studying the effects of the book on the general population, especially children.

Now the problem, as I see it, is does popularity and readibility make the series a classic in the way that the Narnia books are classic?  I'm not sure.  The Narnia books are considered classics not only because of their popularity, but because of the high quality and consistency of the writing -- they get placed into the vague category of "literature".  

Harry Potter will definately have to be involved in any serious Children's Literature category simply because of it's impact on the genre.  This is the way I think it will most likely be remembered. In terms of becoming "classic literature", the problem I see is that, as pointed out in many discussions in this list and others, there are quite a few inconsistencies in the intricate details.  "Literature" has a tenancy to be the best, most solid writing in the genre, and (don't kill me) this series, as much as I love it, has its flaws. It definately fits into the "popular fiction" category, but "classic literature?" it's hard to say.

Will the flaws in the series stop it from being labeled a classic, or simply make it a more interesting study for university students?  We'll have to wait and see.  I honestly think that no, it will not stop this series from being a classic -- it is too important in terms of its effect on at least one generation of children (and adults judging by lists like this one) to be forgotten.  Any survey of 20th Century Children's literature would be insane to ignore the effects that Harry Potter has had on much of the world, and that is one of the ways of making a classic.  

Regardless of the technical terminology, I think that Harry Potter will be affecting children for many, many years to come.

---
--Hana




See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From editor at texas.net  Wed Apr 24 01:38:35 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:38:35 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: 3 little things / father figures / Slytherin
References: <F57JJVX7nuQmy2tmuXM00004134@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <003201c1eb30$c1c11a60$c47763d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38101

Jens said

<a wonderful tie-in with Snape's fear of harm happening to Harry (for
whatever reason) with the father figure theory, which I espouse and helped
start, so I love her forever>

She also said, about Draco impersonating the dementor at the match:

> Children do things without thinking of the consequences. I've done things
> like that (ok, it usually involved danger to myself rather than
others...).
> It is entirely possible that it simply didn't occur to Draco that Harry
> might actually fall.

With all due respect--yeah, right. Like it is possible that it simply didn't
occur to young Sirius that Transformed!Lupin might not seriously injure or
kill Snape. Hah.

--Amanda, waiting for the Sirius lovers to come after her for a Sirius/Draco
parallel




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 01:57:56 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:57:56 -0000
Subject: Draco in Potions (was Barty Crouch Jnr)
In-Reply-To: <aa4r13+62c0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa53f4+417j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38102

Is that like Oedipus in Colonus?  Iphigenia in Tauris?  Iphigenia in 
Brooklyn?  

::shakes head, returns to reality::

Barb wrote:

> Just because he's not too cautious or 
> prudent doesn't mean anything; if anything, it's clear because of 
> this that he's definitely no Ravenclaw (the only class in which we 
> know he excels is Potions, making him a kind of one-song-Sue)

=Does= he excel in Potions?  I don't think we even know that.

No, I don't want to re-engage the Is Draco a top student? question, 
which leads inevitably into the slimy pit that is the Is Draco 
handsome? question,* but IIRC, no one ever came up with concrete 
evidence that he does particularly well or badly in any particular 
class.  It's an open question.

Amy Z

*though those who want a bash at either of these, go for it




From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Wed Apr 24 02:22:56 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:22:56 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco in Potions (was Barty Crouch Jnr)
Message-ID: <c6.a77c040.29f77100@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38103

In a message dated 4/23/2002 10:00:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
lupinesque at yahoo.com writes:

<< 
 No, I don't want to re-engage the Is Draco a top student? question, 
 which leads inevitably into the slimy pit that is the Is Draco 
 handsome? question,* but IIRC, no one ever came up with concrete 
 evidence that he does particularly well or badly in any particular 
 class.  It's an open question.
 
 Amy Z
  >>
Hmmm...well, there's really been no canon evidence of either (other than that 
Snape favors Draco)..although in MY mind, I picture him as very smart 
(perhaps just under Hermione...and I can deffinately see him becoming a 
perfect, even if his grades aren't the best, because of his relationship with 
Snape) and very handsome :)
*Chelsea*



From editor at texas.net  Wed Apr 24 02:47:07 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:47:07 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Father figures or mentor or just plain teacher
References: <aa47qi+4nk9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <011301c1eb3a$540aa9a0$c47763d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38104

Gwendolyn Grace said

> Following on that, let me point out that whether either Snape or Harry
> *wants* this relationship to exist is actually irrelevant. IMO, much
> of the process that creates familial roles in other settings is
> largely subconscious. Harry's subconscious will fill in the gaps in
> his psyche by supplying the behaviour roles of those around him, in a
> position to influence his conduct, for good or ill.

<begrudgingly snip rest of eloquent, perfect, true, marvelous post, which
all of you should go back to, print out, and keep>

And for you, lady, I shall do what I rarely do, and publicly Me Too your
wonderful post. It said what I have been trying to organize my brain into
phrasing. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Hey, Non-Father-Figure guys! What Gwendolyn said! There is no intent! There
is no conscious desire or grasp! It has to do with the subconscious and the
psyche's need for certain stereotypical roles! Yaaay Gwendolyn for putting
it so well!

--Amanda




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Wed Apr 24 03:11:07 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:11:07 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville/Snape Question
References: <aa4rbs+uu8l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000601c1eb3d$adab4660$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38105


Marina Said:
> I don't think he's doing it just to be mean.  I think Snape has zero
> tolerance for people he considers to be stupid or incompetent,
> particularly when their incompetence presents a danger.  I also 
think
> he has no sympathy for other peoples' human weaknesses, and no
> interest in excuses.  If he knows about Neville's situation, he
> probably thinks Neville should suck it up and deal.

And this is not the definition of being mean? If Snape is unfamiliar with situations where it is impossible/unhealthy to "suck it up and deal" or experience "human weaknesses" then he's a tad bit more sheltered than the other survivors of Voldy's first reign.  If he *has* dealt with these situations, the brave, strong thing to do would be to understand Neville - not harass him.

However, I strongly believe that Severus Snape is a coward.  A big, fat, jelly-legged, yellow-bellied coward with a cherry on top.

I don't care what he did "at great personal risk", it means nothing to me. In his daily, normal life he is nothing but a bully who picks on people who are defenseless against him -- and *not* defenseless because they are weak -- defenseless because they are his *responsibility* -- *children* who were entrusted to him with good faith, who cannot/do not defend themselves because they have the *decency* not to attack a teacher.

Honestly, if that man ever said the things he does to me and my friends, I doubt I would have the self restraint not to do something about it.  Sometimes suffering in silence takes the most bravery at all.

And what about Harry?  If anyone maintains a "stiff upper lip" despite his problems, it's Harry.  And yet Snape attacks him the same as Neville.  Harry may not hand him so much easy ammunition (poor Neville is just a walking target for Snape), but it's the same cowardly viciousness in Snape that targets him as well as Neville.

And Hermione -- she's anything but weak, but that doesn't keep Snape from being dastardly towards her.

In my opinion, Snape is mean -- nay, cruel -- because that's just his personality.  He's like those nasty girls in grade school who were absolutely horrid to you because they were insecure.  It's not really personal, it's just them.

Although, IMHO, that's no excuse for Snape.  If he can't handle being in an authority position, then he shouldn't be trying.

*has gotten a little worked up* aigh. sorry.  He just upsets me.  There's nothing that rubs my fur the wrong way more than an abuse of power.  It makes me sick.  And I know that no one can really be a perfect authority figure -- but he doesn't even *try*.  He *owes* it to the people beneath him to TRY.  Everyone with power does.

laura  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com  Wed Apr 24 03:27:00 2002
From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (L. Terrell Gould, III)
Date: 23 Apr 2002 20:27:00 -0700
Subject: to Re: on Snape's Secret Snogging and Wizarding World Weirdos
Message-ID: <20020424032700.21257.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38106

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020423/4cf88c0a/attachment.ksh>

From jmmears at prodigy.net  Wed Apr 24 03:35:25 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:35:25 -0000
Subject: Draco in Potions (was Barty Crouch Jnr)
In-Reply-To: <aa53f4+417j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa595t+5cr5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38107


Amy wrote:

> No, I don't want to re-engage the Is Draco a top student? 
question, 
> which leads inevitably into the slimy pit that is the Is Draco 
> handsome? question,* but IIRC, no one ever came up with concrete 
> evidence that he does particularly well or badly in any particular 
> class.  It's an open question.
> 

I can't think of any canon evidence concerning Draco's performance 
as a student other than Lucius' expressing dissatisfaction with his 
being outdone by Hermione (but then she outdoes everyone).  However, 
I find it hard to believe that he's any brighter than just average.  
After all, he's consistently outsmarted by HRH, and keeps doing 
rather stupid things like taunting Harry during the Quidditch match 
instead of paying attention to the snitch.
Also, could anyone of really superior intelligence really hang 
around with Crabbe & Goyle 24/7?  I always assume that he tolerates 
them because they make him feel superior.

Was there really a discussion about Draco being *handsome*? LOL
>From my canon reading I keep picturing an adolescent David Spade-
type.  Are pale pointy faces topped by silver-blonde hair considered 
hot?

Jo Serenadust




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Wed Apr 24 03:49:06 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:49:06 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will HP become classic?
References: <KIPGAFADLIDIGCAA@mailcity.com>
Message-ID: <001501c1eb42$fb9501e0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38108

I just wanted to reply to some comments on the "Harry Potter Phenomenon" and the fact that even boys like to read it (when boys generally show less enthusiasm for books for girls).

My little brother, bless his heart, is the ultimate anti-reader.  He doesn't like it, he isn't good at it, he'll do anything to avoid it.  This isn't because he has no imagination (quite the opposite, actually) or because reading isn't trendy for boys his age.  On the contrary, his problem with reading lies in a few intermingled factors, namely:

a) he has a learning disability and reading is hard and time-consuming for him. 
b) he has ADHD (attention deficit hyperactive disorder) and *anything* that is hard and time-consuming automatically goes on his hate list.
c) he is a huge fan of TV, computer games, video games, etc.  Seriously, the kid would spend every waking moment playing Diablo II if he were allowed to.

And yet, Harry Potter got him hooked.  My mother and I have been trying to get this kid interested in reading for *years and years* with no luck, and then along comes HP and it's like MAGIC.  Pure magic.  And the kid *still* won't read anything else for pleasure.  But with HP it's different.  He actually *enjoys* it, which is incredible and beautiful.

I actually read HP at first because of him.  I figured anything that could draw him in had to be pretty special, you know?  And it was.  I think with all the nitpicking and theorizing we do around here (and not that I'm complaining) we sort of lose sight of the magic that draws you into Harry's world for the first time.  So what if Marcus Flint spends an extra year at Hogwarts or Nick "lies" about his age? It doesn't really matter in the long run, does it?   Even Tolkien had little "Flints" in his books (although he ultimately went back and fixed them) -- that never detracted from what was *special* about his books.  That intangible thing that makes a book last for generations.

As for whether Harry Potter will be a classic...who knows?  It's not the kind of thing one can really predict.  However, I think whether or not kids are still enjoying HP 100 years from now is really a moot point.  What matters is that Now, right now, Harry Potter is providing the children and adults of today with that magic.

As for those "promising teenagers" who love HP, I am proud to say I am one of them.  And although I may be a bit odd (okay, allot odd), I know countless others my age who love HP as much as I.  A case in point... even my cousin -- who is just about as self-destructive, peer-pressured, and teenagerish as you could ask for in a 17 year old --  loves the books.  HP might be "popular fiction", but it's popular for a very good reason.  Which slightly makes up for the awful sin of being mainstream. ^_~

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From megalynn44 at hotmail.com  Sat Apr 20 15:36:06 2002
From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Meghan Stancil)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:36:06 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Have Slytherins always been hated?
Message-ID: <F36tlQhLhcA696uItWZ00006563@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38109

>I'm not entirely sure, but I think Voldemort was rising in power when the 
>Marauders were in school.  There's a timeline of the entire HP universe 
>that's been compiled from dates mentioned in the books, and ages mentioned 
>by JKR in interviews

>It indicates that the Marauders were probably in school in the 1970s and 
>that's around the time Voldemort began to rise in power. It makes it a 
>tough call as to any prejudices existing during their schooling though near 
>the end I'd have to say that there were probably a lot.
>
>---
>--Hana


BUt that's my point, at that time he was merely rising to power. NO one knew 
at that time that when it was all said and done the Slytherins would be the 
majority to go over to the Dark Arts. As I originally said, I really do 
think the hatred towards the Slytherins is one part Harry's POV and the 
other part BACKLASH after Voldy's reign.

Megs


__elf note: Edited for snippage





From jillyharris at triton.net  Wed Apr 24 03:25:37 2002
From: jillyharris at triton.net (Jilly Harris)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:25:37 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco in Potions (was Barty Crouch Jnr)
References: <c6.a77c040.29f77100@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3CC625B1.FE1304A5@triton.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38110



Chelsea2162 at aol.com wrote:

>  Hmmm...well, there's really been no canon evidence of either (other
> than that
> Snape favors Draco)..although in MY mind, I picture him as very smart
> (perhaps just under Hermione...and I can deffinately see him becoming
> a
> perfect, even if his grades aren't the best, because of his
> relationship with
> Snape) and very handsome :)

I think at the present time he's not worrying about his grades (present
time as in CoS and PS/SS) because of his father, though his father does
downgrade him for not doing better in class at the beginning of CoS in
Knockturn Alley. His father is a member of the Governors up until the
end of CoS. I think after that Draco started buckling down more. I do
envision him as a prefect and a likely candidate for Head Boy with
Hermione as Head Girl.

Jilly





From jenserai at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 24 04:41:55 2002
From: jenserai at hotmail.com (Jenserai Bariman)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:41:55 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: 3 little things / father figures / Slytherin
Message-ID: <F8fYviMdFJgcOFul6nc00008ca9@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38111

Amanda wrote:
>Jens said
>
><a wonderful tie-in with Snape's fear of harm happening to Harry (for
>whatever reason) with the father figure theory, which I espouse and helped
>start, so I love her forever>
>

Umm, actaully, I didn't write that...

>She also said, about Draco impersonating the dementor at the match:
>
> > Children do things without thinking of the consequences. I've done 
>things
> > like that (ok, it usually involved danger to myself rather than
>others...).
> > It is entirely possible that it simply didn't occur to Draco that Harry
> > might actually fall.
>
>With all due respect--yeah, right. Like it is possible that it simply 
>didn't
>occur to young Sirius that Transformed!Lupin might not seriously injure or
>kill Snape. Hah.
>
>--Amanda, waiting for the Sirius lovers to come after her for a 
>Sirius/Draco
>parallel
>

Okay, I obviously didn't word that correctly. I'm still not really sure how 
to illustrate the idea, but I'll give it another shot. There's a certain 
state of mind that I think people occaionally get into. The "it seemed like 
a good idea at the time" state of mind where rational thought processes are 
over-ridden for whatever reason and they do entirly stupid things, not 
realizing until later why it was a Very Bad Idea. When I said it was 
"possible that it simply didn't occur to Draco that Harry might actually 
fall", I might have to explained more as short term denial. He sort of 
not-quite-consiously chose not to think about it.

And don't say that sort of thing doesn't happen, I know from personal 
experiance that it does. I have a neighbor about my age and we used to beat 
eachother up regularly. Of course, we're great friends now...

-Jens


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx





From cyndi at psychosheep.com  Wed Apr 24 06:14:45 2002
From: cyndi at psychosheep.com (piper3777)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:14:45 -0000
Subject: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <aa4q3q+47ch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa5igl+jbok@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38112


Hi. This is my first post here. :-)

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:

> 
> In the end, I think Harry and Voldemort will meet each other on 
> their own terms, man to man, and Harry may make him even 
more human 
> than before, which could be his final undoing.
> 
> --Barb

You've all got some great theories about the end of Voldemort, 
but I especially agree with what Barb has said here. I've always 
imagined that, at the end, Voldemort will be stripped of his 
powers (by Harry, of course) and become more human, literally, 
by morphing back into a gray-haired Tom Riddle. It would be an 
appropriate ending for such a powerful dark wizard to be 
reduced to a mere Muggle. Assuming that V's main objective is 
to follow in the footsteps of his ancestor in ridding the wizarding 
world of Muggle-borns, it also fits in with what I think is the main 
theme of the books: racism, how it is born, why it can fester in 
society and the consequences it brings. 

Then, once Tom Riddle is a Muggle, there are all sorts of fun 
ways to kill him. :-)  How about a nice, medieval public 
beheading in the middle of Hogsmeade square? I realize Harry 
is the star and all and there most likely will be a showdown 
between he and Voldemort, but it would be nice if Harry didn't 
have to shoulder the entire burden of getting rid of Voldemort. 
Harry should be essential in his downfall but it would be nice to 
see someone else (Voldemort himself?) strike the final blow. 
Harry doesn't need any more blood on his hands.

~Piper





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 24 11:31:01 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:31:01 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <000601c1eb3d$adab4660$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <aa651l+9nhc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38113

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
> 
> Marina Said:
> > I don't think he's doing it just to be mean.  I think Snape has 
zero
> > tolerance for people he considers to be stupid or incompetent,
> > particularly when their incompetence presents a danger.  I also 
> think
> > he has no sympathy for other peoples' human weaknesses, and no
> > interest in excuses.  If he knows about Neville's situation, he
> > probably thinks Neville should suck it up and deal.
> 
> And this is not the definition of being mean? 

No.  Snape genuinely believes that Neville deserves to be treated 
this way.  He's totally wrong, but that's not the same as just being 
mean.

>If Snape is unfamiliar with situations where it is 
impossible/unhealthy to "suck it up and deal" or experience "human 
weaknesses" then he's a tad bit more sheltered than the other 
survivors of Voldy's first reign.  If he *has* dealt with these 
situations, the brave, strong thing to do would be to understand 
Neville - not harass him.
> 

Obviously, Snape was not sheltered during Voldemort's time.  I 
believe, however, that his own human weaknesses and failure to deal 
are what led to the worst excesses of his misspent youth, and 
overcoming those is what eventually enabled to do the right thing.  
(This is all part and parcel of SWEETGEORGIANISM, of course -- wave 
to the nice folks, George!)  Because he tends to project his mindset 
on everyone else, he doesn't grasp that for some (most?) people, 
occasionally giving in to their weaknesses is okay and even 
healthy.  *They're* not going to run out and become DEs because of 
it.


> And what about Harry?  If anyone maintains a "stiff upper lip" 
despite his problems, it's Harry.  And yet Snape attacks him the 
same as Neville.  Harry may not hand him so much easy ammunition 
(poor Neville is just a walking target for Snape), but it's the same 
cowardly viciousness in Snape that targets him as well as Neville.
> 
> And Hermione -- she's anything but weak, but that doesn't keep 
Snape from being dastardly towards her.
> 

He doesn't attack Harry and Hermione for the same reason he attacks 
Neville.  There was a whole thread on Snape and Hermione not so long 
ago, where people hashed out his motivations pretty well.  And with 
Harry, his grudge is very personal and has more to do with James and 
with Harry himself.

> In my opinion, Snape is mean -- nay, cruel -- because that's just 
his personality. <

To a large degree, that's true.  He's a misanthrope.  He doesn't 
like most people, and he feels free to act on that dislike because 
he doesn't care if most of them dislike him right back.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 24 12:43:42 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:43:42 -0000
Subject: Only Children/ Likeable Slytherins?
In-Reply-To: <13d.d1e1c1a.29f4079f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aa699v+vllo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38114

Hi,

Sorry I'm a bit late with my response. It's been growing bit by bit 
on my computer (at work, mind you), taking it's time and not hurrying 
anywhere. However, here it is.

I had said:

> > Well, some ends justify some means, but to use *any* means to 
achieve 
> > your end? That *is* chilling (I'm relying on the above quote, I 
> > haven't the books here with me.)
> > 

Heidi replied: 

> Playing devil's advocate here, I have to make a few points about 
the above 
> argument:
> 1. That was only in the Sorting Hat's song first year - that 
concept wasn't 
> in the song during their 4th year, although ambition was mentioned 
then. 
> Would a 1st year who only hears that year's song 
think "Yes! I am ambitious! 
> And I want to be with other ambitious people! Please! Slytherin! 
I'm not as 
> clever as the ravenclaws or as brave as tehe Gryffindors or as hard 
working 
> as the Hufflepuffs.I just want to be a best-selling romance 
novelist! Yes, I 
> have ambition! Put me in Slytherin!" And if the Sorting Hat did the 
same 
> thing it had done for Harry, would some sweet yet ambitious kid end 
up in 
> Slytherin as a fluke? 

Me:

No. Because the Sorting Hat would sense that this is a kid whose 
ambition isn't overriding. That this kid wouldn't use *any* means to 
achieve her goals. 

<snip>

Heidi:

> 2. Yes, using any means to achieve one's ends could be a chilling 
concept; 
> again, it depends on how you define it. And there are all sorts of 
wonderful 
> goals in this world that have terrible potential pre-steps to 
achieving them. 
> You want to cure all types of cancer? Great goal! But what if the 
main 
> ingredient of the cure is fresh water - and you have to deplete the 
planet's 
> stockpile to do it.  What if your goal is destroying an evil 
terrorist and 
> his henchmen? Great goal! But what if you have to drop an atomic 
bomb on a 
> city of one hundred thousand innocent people to do it? WHat if your 
goal is 
> feeding all the hungry in the world? Great goal! But what if you 
have to feed 
> them the dead bodies of other people to do it?

Me:

Precisely. Which is why the means and ends question shouldn't be 
answered symplistically (e.g., "the ends don't justify the means" 
platitude). Each case should be judged individually. 

Heidi:

> But what if you want to get an illegal dragon off school propery? 
Great goal! 
> But you have to sneak out of your down afterhours to do it. How 
many people 
> on this list would think you evil? Or that you're using any means 
to achieve 
> your ends? Quite.
> But what if you want to enforce school rules? Great goal! But you 
have to 
> sneak out of your dorm afterhours to do it. Not a problem! (see 
above) 
> Unless, of course, you're in Slytherin, in which case it seems to 
be deemed a 
> greater level of rulebreaking than the sneaking out that Harry did 
to get to 
> the mirror of erised, or to send Norbert away, or to stop Snape 
from getting 
> the stone (I know they didn't actually, but that's what they 
thought they 
> were sneaking out to do).

Me:

You really, honestly believe that Draco was trying to "enforce school 
rules"?! Please! He was trying to get Harry and his friends in 
trouble. He was *sneaking* on his school fellows ? a much worse 
offense (in all the school books I've ever read) than the rule 
breaking that Harry et al. were engaged in.

Heidi:
> 
> I guess on an empirical level, taking someone else's Remembrall to 
stick it 
> (unbroken!) up a tree is worse than stealing potions supplies from 
a 
> professor so you can make a potion so you can sneak into someone 
else's dorm 
> room so you can learn if he's the Heir of Slytherin. And it's 
possible that 
> reporting a teacher to a staff member for being involved in a plot 
to steal a 
> valuable stone is not as bad as trying to get a teacher fired from 
his 
> position for incompetence. And kicking a cat is certainly not as 
bad as 
> trying to get a Hippogryff decapitated, no matter what that 
Hippogryff did to 
> you. 

Me:

About Ron. When did he kick a cat? I can't remember this incident. I 
seem to remember him pushing or maybe trying to kick Croockshanks. If 
that's what you mean, then I'd like to point out that at the time he 
thought the cat was trying to eat his pet rat. Buckbeak, on the other 
hand, presented no ongoing threat to Draco. There was one incident, 
quite unlikely to repeat itself. Which means that Draco had no other 
motive but revenge (and that's when you discount the most probable 
motive ? pure spite). How can you compare the means when the goals 
are so morally different (saving a pet ? taking spiteful revenge).
Well, the "valuable stone" is a way for the most fearsome Dark Wizard 
to achieve immortality. Trying to save the world ? trying to get a 
teacher fired. Hmmm. Again, the ends are too different for the means 
to be sensibly compared.
Taking a Remebrall and sticking in up a tree isn't particularly 
nasty. However, stealing potion supplies ? *at great risk to 
oneself* -  in order *to save lives* is a noble thing to do, on a 
completely different moral level than doing something that is merely 
not very mean. Again ? not comparable!


Heidi:
> 
> And knocking a classmate out isn't as bad as insulting him.
> 
> Oh, wait, um, no. I'm not so sure about that last one.  Given that 
the 
> stunning was inadvertent, and caused because of the simultaneous 
set of 
> spells rather than the individual spells themselves, I can't 
personally 
> determine that one is worse than another. But that's just because I 
still 
> believe that "Sticks & Stones" rhyme, and think that giving someone 
the 
> Furnunculus curse because he insulted you isn't as practical as 
shoving him 
> out the door and spell-locking it so he can't get back in. But that 
> wouldn't've been half as dramatic as it was.  
>

Me:

Hmm. I don't think that this incident belongs in a "means and ends" 
discussion. Harry et al. weren't using questionable or problematic 
means to achieve some end. They weren't trying to achieve anything. 
They reacted reflexively on their anger. They were provoked and they 
lashed out. 
Of course, it's an interesting ethical question in itself: Does anger 
justify acts of violence? What type of provocation justifies what 
type of violence? Is it partial or complete justification? etc. But I 
don't think it belongs in a list of examples about people using 
bad/questionable means. 

Me:

> > Besides, the things you enumerate are really very mild rule 
breaking 
> > on H R& R part. The point about the Slytherins is, I think, that 
they 
> > are willing to do things that are clearly not moral in order to 
> > achieve their goals. Any person might sometimes ventures into 
morally 
> > grey areas, especially when trying to achieve an important goal, 
but 
> > the Slytherins are depicted as people who easily go into morally 
> > black (=obviously wrong) areas when it comes to fulfilling


Heidi:
 
> Okay, I clearly missed this part among the students who are 
currently there. 
> Can you show me some scenes in canon which show Slytherins doing 
things (i.e. 
> not just *saying* things)  in which they're venturing into morally 
black 
> areas?  

Me:

Well, in practically every Quidditch game that Gryffindor plays 
Slytherin, the Slytherins foul the Gryffindors in some spectacular 
way. Draco grabbing Harry's broomstick comes to mind. Or, Flint 
scoring five goals, exploiting the fact that everybody's attention is 
on Harry ? who is hovering between life and death. Or, Millicent 
Bullstrode choking Hermione. Also, Draco's attempt to get Buckbeak 
decapitated. Trying to get Hagrid sacked. These are very real things 
that he tried to achieve. You think that because he went about 
achieving these things through "saying things" makes it somehow less 
black morally? (Maybe I don't quite understand your argument, 
however.)
Anyway, when I say "Slytherins" (in this context) I don't only mean 
the current Slytherin students, but Slytherin students in general ? 
past, present and future. That's the way it's used in the books, 
right? People talk of a person being a Slytherin/Gryffindor long 
after he or she had left school. So, I think that the fact that most 
Dark Wizards were from Slytherin should certainly be taken into 
account when assessing the Slytherin traits and tendencies.  

Heidi:

>I guess possibly the scene where 4 of them dress as Dementors to 
freak 
> Harry out, but they clearly knew they wouldn't be able to have the 
power to 
> suck out his happy thoughts and make him see horrible things, and 
they 
> already knew that Dumbledore would be able to stop him if he fell.

Me:

But even if you discount their attempt on Harry's life, it still 
remains a despicable thing to do. In the context of sports, which is 
founded on the notion of fair play, nothing could be worse than 
planning cold bloodedly to damage an opponent in order to gain a 
victory, don't you think? It's a perfect example of the Slytherin 
spirit of winning by hook or by crook. 

Heidi:

>And I 
> certainly don't think that Dumbledore considered some of the things 
that 
> H-R-H do as mild rulebreaking - look at his reaction when Ron and 
Harry flew  to school! 
>

Me:

Well, maybe it's not so much that the rulebreaking was mild, as that 
rulebreaking *as such* is only a mild form of "being bad". 

Heidi:

 > All this is meant to say is that I don't think that we can look at 
Slytherins 
> as "all black" (no reference to the NZ team here) without seeing a 
little 
> more of the current crop of students. 

Me:

I don't see the Slyterins as "all black' (what's the NZ team?). I do 
think, however, that JKR is painting a group of people who are 
characterised by  basic personality traits that make them more 
*likely* to do bad things, to the point of making them more likely to 
go completely evil. 
I'd also like to add that free choice and free will aren't undermined 
by the "dark Slytherins" picture. Even as a Slytherin, you have a 
choice between the good and bad sides. The fact that your basic 
tendencies make this choice harder for you emphasizes the issue, 
makes it more poignant. Rather like Christian anthropology - human 
nature is sinful but even so free will exists and, as a consequence, 
redemption is possible. 


Naama






From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Apr 24 14:54:04 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:54:04 -0000
Subject: Will HP become classic?
In-Reply-To: <KIPGAFADLIDIGCAA@mailcity.com>
Message-ID: <aa6guc+i2jq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38115

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hana" <gohana_chan02 at l...> wrote:
>  abigailnus said:

> In terms of it being a classic, I think it depends on the context to 
some extent.  There is a university in western Canada (the University 
of Calgary I think, but I don't really remember) that is offering an 
>honours course about the Harry Potter phenomena.  

The University of Alberta in Edmonton. Very cool.

Eileen




From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 24 15:28:53 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:28:53 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <F260DgkALmTwn2QrIi000020b11@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa6ivl+tmpc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38116

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jenserai Bariman" <jenserai at h...> wrote:
> Jamie Lipton wrote:
> Maybe he hated the Longbottoms like he hated James Potter.
> >As aurors, they could be responsible for the
> >killing/imprisonment/mistreatment of any number of people Snape 
may have
> >been close with: friends, family, lovers, etc.  Perhaps they were 
the ones
> >responsible for dragging Snape himself in for consorting with the 
Dark 
> >Lord,
> >since we know that at one point Dumbledore had to vouch for him.
> >
> >Just an idea.
> >- Jamie
> 
> What if he treats Neville (and possibly Harry) so badly because he 
feels in 
> some way responsible for their parents death? Given Snape's ability 
to hold 
> grudges against other people, I think it could be possible he holds 
long 
> term grudges against himself as well. He was, after all a spy, but 
was 
> unable to inform Dumbledore of the danger to the Potters and 
Longbottoms 
> (yes, I suppose someone else might have screwed up, but I think 
it's less 
> likely). And now, he's faced with the children of these people he 
failed to 
> save, and he has to teach them. Under the circumstances, having 
been through 
> what he has, I think many might react in a similar fashion.
> 


And he treats Hermione in the same crappy fashion.. why exactly? 

The amount of energy put into defending Snape I find quite touching 
(if somewhat alarming), but I also find it irritating when people 
explain away his nasty behavior by focusing on one of his victims. I 
would like to see a unified theory of Snape Bully-ism. Let's see if 
you can explain away, at one go, his treatment of Harry, Neville AND 
Hermione (not to mention his overall nastiness to practically 
everybody around him). 



Naama







From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 24 15:52:19 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:52:19 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <aa6ivl+tmpc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa6kbj+2orf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38117

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> wrote:

> would like to see a unified theory of Snape Bully-ism. Let's see if 
> you can explain away, at one go, his treatment of Harry, Neville AND 
> Hermione (not to mention his overall nastiness to practically 
> everybody around him). 

There is no unified theory, IMO.  Snape finds different reasons for
being nasty to different people.  Because he's an inventive sort of
person, and naturally predisposed to be nasty, he can find an infinite
number of reasons.  Basically, Snape thinks people are scum -- but
each separate person is scum in their own unique and special way. :-)

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From ladjables at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 15:41:30 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again 
Message-ID: <20020424154130.37391.qmail@web20404.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38118

Hi all,
I unfortunately had to miss the rest of the house-elf
argument.  In discussing the similarity of the
house-elf experience to slavery, I originally omitted
some points.  If these have already been discussed in
my absence, apologies in advance; I seem to be missing
a huge chunk of mail between mid-March and mid-April.

1) Dobby's voice: Dobby's and Winky's speech patterns
in GoF are extremely similar to the Black American
English of the 19th century, if there are any
linguists on the list.  Really, all we need is a "yes,
massa" and we're set.  Dobby's quasi-Gullah dialect is
more notably pronounced in GoF than in CoS.  It's
interesting that in creating a voice for Dobby JKR
would use an idiom wich such strong connotations.  Did
anyone else spot this?  

2)Dumbledore's attitude to Dobby and Winky: I've often
considered Dumbledore the moral compass of the series,
even though he may very well turn out to have some
less than perfect motives regarding Harry.  However,
there can be no doubt he is a progressive thinker in
the Potterverse.  Snape, Lupin, Hagrid and others all
benefit from Dumbledore's willingness to give people a
chance at a new life.  In this sense, I feel quite
confident we can trust him, and we know that
Dumbledore will pay house-elfs, give them holidays and
attire them properly.  He places no restriction on
their freedom of speech.  Dumbledore, as usual, goes
against the normal conventions of the wizarding world.
 He doesn't seem to regard rigid enforcement of
house-elf status as necessary to maintaining stability
in the wizarding world.  That's a sign, to me, that
house-elfs really don't need to be so controlled.

3)House-Elfs are not human:
[Dicentra63 wrote, on the house-elf issue:
<<...the argument from Hagrid et al that "they like
it" might actually be valid in the WW, given that
they're not human and have different psychological
needs.>>

This cogent argument has been put forward before, in
many forms, and excellent examples from the sci-fi
genre were given by talondg and greywolf among others.
 But, this was precisely the sort of argument used to
justify African slavery in the first place.  It was
the prevailing view at the time that blacks were
descended from the gorilla (their prominent simian
facial features were cited as evidence of this link)
and therefore not related to whites (after all,
Darwin's Origin of the Species isn't published till a
quarter century after the aboliton of slavery, and
public acceptance isn't immediate).  Oh, they were
bipeds, viviparous, and capable of speech, but these
characteristics simply confirmed the African was an
advanced ape.  The only thing remarkable about him was
his brute strength.  

So someone came up with the perfectly brilliant,
logical notion that they would make an ideal labour
force because they had the stamina to withstand a
harsh tropical climate, once there were overseers to
supervise them and keep them in line.  They had none
of the needs of a civilized people, so issues of
wages, education and health care were easily dispensed
with.  The morality question disappeared completely. 
So consider the view "they're a different species with
different needs" has in fact been used as an excuse to
perpetrate the most abominable kind of abuse. A
logical argument may be advanced to support any issue,
but that doesn't make it right.

4)Authorial Intent and Canon-Even if our information
on house-elfs is sketchy, we do know JKR finds
prejudice and inequality in general to be
reprehensible; in fact, she has said her feelings on
the subject shaped Harry Potter.  I think therefore it
cannot be ignored. What is the point of creating an
entire species and depriving them of freedom?  Does
this not go against her own beliefs or does this apply
only to humans and not house-elfs?!  Why create such a
complicated species when her books are geared
principally towards children?  What exactly is she
trying to say to 10 year olds in her treatment of
house-elfs?  That some species have to be controlled
for their own good?  That, in the vein of Orwell's
Animal Farm, some are more equal that others?   That's
very iffy, not to mention contradictory to canon.

I can only deduce that she is potraying the house-elfs
in such a way as to highlight that treating someone
that  disrespectfully is morally unacceptable, which
would bring house-elfs under the umbrella theme of
prejudice.  Mutual respect is by no means limited to
human beings.  I treat my dog like a dog, but that
doesn't mean he has to be subdued or intimidated to
the point where he expects and even accepts it.  (Same
goes for being anthropomorphisized.  Dressing him in
trousers and coat-tails and having him sit at the
table is equally heinous and disprespectful, IMO, to
his doggyness.  Of course, if he wanted to sit at my
table, of his own doggy volition, that's another
matter altogether.  Ok, moving on.)

So, following points 3 and 4, I submit that all
species deserve to be treated respectfully, even in
the Potterverse.  And I'm not getting the feeling
house-elfs know respect is a mutual thing.  I cannot
believe JKR would invent creatures like the house-elfs
because she thinks obsequiousness is an admirable
quality.  Hence the existence of Dobby and Winky, who
represent the fall-out of enslavement.  Why bother to
introduce Dobby at all if not to point out that nature
does not dictate character, (giants, werewolves,
seniors, drunks, Snapes anyone?) that we must be able
to choose the life we lead?  And without choice, our
most basic rights are impaired: we lack free will.  

Dobby is our freedom-fighter; he embodies the most
admirable traits one can develop when subjected to a
situation that is infra dig.  He chooses not to accept
his position.  On the other hand, Winky is our classic
victim of menticide, that most debilitating and
persistent malady slavery transmits.  She has accepted
her position.  The idea that freedom is always
desirable in the real world is simplistic and
deceptive.  The mark of the truly oppressed is that
freedom is an alien notion.  Winky has been freed, but
until she can wrap her mind around the concept, she
may as well be working for Barty Crouch.  

The idea that house-elfs should be dependent by nature
does not seem to mesh with JKR's publicly voiced
objectives in writing Harry Potter.  I'm not
discounting the possibility that they may have a
symbiotic relationship with wizards, or that their
powerful magic may have been used for evil in the past
and needed to be regulated.  Perhaps their present
condition wasn't imposed, perhaps they agreed to a
form of indentureship.  But I simply don't see where
JKR, ostensibly a writer of children's literature,
could be going with the notion that a controlled
species is acceptable in light of her comments on
oppression and intolerance.  Join me for a glass of
wine at Madam DeFarge's if you agree. 

Ama, who'll be wearing her sabots, H.E.L.F. T-shirt
and beret, and terrifying the patrons in general with
her sudden outbursts on revolution.









__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Apr 24 16:34:59 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:34:59 -0000
Subject: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <aa4q3q+47ch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa6mrj+fssn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38119

Barb wrote:
>>>The sword was already used to 
vanquish a foe at the end of book two, so it is unlikely to be used 
for that purpose again. <<<

Ah, I see what you mean. IMO, the death of the Basilisk is a 
*false* climax. The real climax of book 2 is three pages later, 
when Harry destroys Riddle by means of *the diary* (emphasis 
JKR's). Harry uses the sword, it's true, but not very competently. It 
gets stuck in the basilisk's mouth (it takes a "huge tug" to get it 
out again), and so Harry rather stupidly hangs on and gets bitten 
for his trouble, thus setting the stage for the true climax and 
incidentally making sure the sword isn't used against Riddle this 
time.

This is an established pattern in fantasy. The  hero receives a 
special sword at the beginning of his adventures, but is not yet 
ready to use it, and is either prevented from doing so by his 
mentors (Aragorn), or attempts to use it with disastrous results ( 
King Arthur, Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins, Taran of Prydain, 
Harry Potter). The sword is then either destroyed and replaced, 
or else entrusted to a more suitable guardian and  returned to 
the hero only when he is fully mature. The symbolism is fairly 
obvious, and apt to resonate with a modern audience for whom 
the gap between the age of puberty and the age of responsible 
adulthood is even wider than it was when Mallory wrote.

 Since the sword of Gryffindor is safely put to rest in its glass 
case, not unlike Snow White, I think Harry will get it back, 
although perhaps it will be Ron that ends up using it, since 
wands don't seem to be his thing. 

Barb wrote further:
>>I doubt it will be a Muggle-style duel with swords. <<<

Swords aren't Muggle in the Potterverse. Gryffindor was a 
wizard...if swords aren't wizarding weapons, why did he have one 
at all?


>>For another, unless he DOES turn into a dragon or other beast 
(which is a bit too much like 
the Buffy graduation--wrong fandom!--and not very JKR) I can't 
see Harry killing anyone who's nominally human in such a grisly 
manner.  <<

Not being much of a Buffy fan,  I thought it was  like the end of 
Disney's Sleeping Beauty, or else Lewis's The Silver Chair. 
These kinds of endings do get re-used, don't they <g>. I like the 
idea of Voldemort becoming more human, though if he does 
become a Muggle as Piper (welcome!) suggested, then it would 
be kind of unchivalrous to use magic to do him in, wouldn't it?  
As for grisliness, didn't JKR warn us the books were going to get 
darker and the deaths worse, and that she wanted her readers 
to understand what death was like? I don't think the rest of 
Voldemort's victims are going to go as bloodlessly as Cedric did. 
I think if Voldemort comes to a gory end he will have had a 
chance to earn it.

Pippin





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 16:36:00 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:36:00 -0000
Subject: Draco in Potions (was Barty Crouch Jnr)
In-Reply-To: <aa53f4+417j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa6mtg+su7i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38120

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" <lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> Is that like Oedipus in Colonus?  Iphigenia in Tauris?  Iphigenia 
> in Brooklyn?  
> 
> ::shakes head, returns to reality::

LOL!  I was just referring to Oedipus' father exposing him as a baby 
because of the prediction that the child would grow up to kill the 
father, but it was precisely because Oedipus grew up without knowing 
his real father that he didn't realize the identity of the man he 
was killing.  (Someone trying to circumvent their destiny 
inadvertently making things happen they're trying to avoid.)  It 
just seemed to me that Voldemort might have been told that Harry 
would be his downfall, and by trying to get him out of the way he 
makes the very thing happen he was trying to avoid.  It's a classic 
construct, not just present in the Oedipus myth but many other 
stories around the world.  (I'm really only referring to it because 
it's one example of that.)

> Barb wrote:
> 
> > Just because he's not too cautious or 
> > prudent doesn't mean anything; if anything, it's clear because 
> > of this that he's definitely no Ravenclaw (the only class in 
> > which we know he excels is Potions, making him a kind of one-
> > song-Sue)
> 
> =Does= he excel in Potions?  I don't think we even know that.

We do get multiple instances of Snape praising his work--he doesn't 
praise any other student, not even other Slytherins.  While Hermione 
probably does everything perfectly both in practice and theory 
(written tests and papers) I'm still guessing that Snape gives 
Malfoy the top marks in the class.  He may or may not deserve it or 
be as good as Hermione; that's another debate.  But in Potions, at 
least, he does seem to know what he's doing.  Snape would have to do 
a lot of backpedaling to justify praising someone who was 
incompetent or merely adequate.

I like the picture of a young David Spade as Malfoy; that actually 
seems about right.  Many of us who write fanfic in which Draco is 
better-looking than Spade (raises hand guiltily) recognize that in 
the future HP books Malfoy will probably NOT be even close to drop-
dead gorgeous, as he sometimes is in fanfic.  I wasn't aware of 
anyone suggesting that there's canon evidence of Draco Malfoy being 
a future sex god or anything.  I certainly don't see that in the 
books.  Just because he was able to get a date for the Yule Ball and 
Crabbe and Goyle didn't isn't saying much (espcially when you recall 
that his date, Pansy Parkinson, doesn't get a very complimentary 
description of her looks from JKR).

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Wed Apr 24 17:07:45 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:07:45 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <aa6ivl+tmpc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <CC1E0983-57A5-11D6-A55E-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38121

Naama wrote:

> The amount of energy put into defending Snape I find quite touching
> (if somewhat alarming),

Why is that? I kind of thought this goes without saying, but if not: 
"defending" Snape as we do on this list is not tantamount to saying he 
blameless, innocent, saint-like if you just think about it the right way 
or that we are in any way shape or form advocating his behavior in the 
real world. I adore Snape as a character, but in my personal life I 
don't make a habit of terrorizing small children just for fun.

> but I also find it irritating when people
> explain away his nasty behavior by focusing on one of his victims.

Forgive me if I'm misreading you here, but if you think that by 
"focusing on one of his victims" somehow lays the blame on Harry, 
Hermione, or Neville, then this is simply not the case. I think it's 
perfectly reasonable to imagine that someone finds different people 
grating for different reasons. If we choose to look for insight into 
Snape's motivations, which the text encourages us to do because he is an 
enigmatic character, then I see plenty of canon evidence to suggest that 
a) Neville infuriates him because he can't stand to see weakness or 
incompetence, b) Hermione infuriates him because he feels her 
interruptions undermine his authority, c) Harry infuriates him because 
he feels resentful that Harry took all the credit for defeating LV when 
Snape was busy risking his life to do the same thing, plus he 
(mistakenly) thinks Harry is reckless, arrogant, etc. Fishing out all 
these 'reasons' for his behavior isn't to excuse it, it's just that some 
of us find it fun to try to see what makes him tick.

Of course there are other reasons too; they are all Gryffindors, so he 
makes a point of tormenting them in order to amuse and favor his own 
house, etc.

As a counter-example, I don't think he ever *makes a point* of bullying 
Seamus even though he's a Gryff. I think this is because Seamus tries to 
to maintain a low profile and stay out of Snape's line of fire, unlike 
Hermione and occasionally Ron who can't resist provoking him. Plus, 
unlike Harry and Neville, Seamus doesn't trigger any unhappy 
associations for Snape. So my point here is that there is evidence that 
Snape targets some students more than others for specific reasons; some 
bother him more than others. This is not blaming the victim, it's just 
looking at the evidence given.

> I would like to see a unified theory of Snape Bully-ism. Let's see if
> you can explain away, at one go, his treatment of Harry, Neville AND
> Hermione (not to mention his overall nastiness to practically
> everybody around him).

A unified theory? IIRC, Fred and George provide a useful enough one of 
these: he hates everyone and he's seen everything. Doesn't this go 
without saying? Snape is misanthropic by nature, I suspect he came from 
a Dark Arts family who probably raised him (through fine example) to 
have little regard for his fellow man. He's been a Death Eater and has 
probably seen, caused, and perhaps occasionally experienced unspeakably 
horrible acts with the effect that merely making sarcastic remarks or 
criticizing a student's poor performance don't even register on Snape's 
personal Cruelty-O-Meter. Well, I'm not saying he doesn't know he's 
being cruel, but he really doesn't care; relative to what he's lived 
through it's just not that important to him. Does this make him an 
S.O.B.? Well sure it does, and that's why we love him. :-)

Now in the real world I'd doubt the wisdom of letting someone so 
hardened teach little children, but wizarding world standards are 
tougher than ours and it just doesn't bother me so much in what is, of 
course, a fictitious character.

Snape's scarred and angry personality is one of the reasons that I find 
it hard to believe that he actually is fond of Draco and that his 
evident kindness to him is not due to some tactical reason to keep 
Lucius happy, for example. I think the only genuine, undisguised, 
undiluted, unguarded emotion that Snape expresses in public is fury; 
everything else strikes me as a little suspicious.

Still, none of this rules out that in some dark corner of the back of 
his convoluted mind that he doesn't imagine he might be doing the right 
thing; his students really ought to respect his authority, Neville 
really is a danger to himself and others, Harry just might get himself 
killed if he doesn't wisen up, etc. I'm not saying Snape  *handles* 
these issues the right way; obviously Lupin's insight and compassion 
have a much more beneficial effect on Neville; Harry never sees Snape as 
an effective deterrent but only as a challenge to get around; his 
students would probably respect his authority more if he were 
stern-but-fair like McGonagall. I find all his wrongheadedness rather 
endearing myself, but of course the rest of you are more than welcome to 
find it nauseating. I'd say "good, all the more Snape left for me," but 
I guess there's always enough to go around, isn't there....

~~Porphyria, piping up on her favorite subject

As I type this, my boy cat has decided to attack my fingers with his 
paws and needle teeth -- I blame all typos squarely on Xylem (and yes, 
he does have a sister named Phloem).


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com  Wed Apr 24 17:49:56 2002
From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:49:56 +0100
Subject: Draco in Potions
References: <aa6mtg+su7i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007801c1ebb8$722c4be0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 38122

 I'm still guessing that Snape gives
> Malfoy the top marks in the class.  He may or may not deserve it or
> be as good as Hermione; that's another debate.  But in Potions, at
> least, he does seem to know what he's doing.  Snape would have to do
> a lot of backpedaling to justify praising someone who was
> incompetent or merely adequate.

I always get the impression that Draco is a bright student and that his good
marks may be justified.  However, his marks in other classes are not always
up to snuff;  see his father's comments in the shop on his poor performance.
This may be because he could not get away with trouble-making, say, in
Tranfiguration the way he does in Potions.  * Conjures  - put downs -
McGonagall would employ on Malfoy and grins *

Sometimes the brightest students in the class are the ones who fool around
most because they are bored and can't be bothered.

Anyway, I sympathise with Draco, having a father like his must be hell!

Felicia





From ComtessadeChats at cs.com  Wed Apr 24 14:42:38 2002
From: ComtessadeChats at cs.com (ComtessadeChats at cs.com)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:42:38 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Finishing Voldemort
Message-ID: <29.261b99d8.29f81e5e@cs.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38123

In a message dated 4/24/02 1:09:51 AM Mountain Daylight Time, 
cyndi at psychosheep.com writes:

> Then, once Tom Riddle is a Muggle, there are all sorts of fun 
>  ways to kill him. :-)  How about a nice, medieval public 
>  beheading in the middle of Hogsmeade square? I realize Harry 
>  is the star and all and there most likely will be a showdown 
>  between he and Voldemort, but it would be nice if Harry didn't 
>  have to shoulder the entire burden of getting rid of Voldemort. 
>  Harry should be essential in his downfall but it would be nice to 
>  see someone else (Voldemort himself?) strike the final blow. 
>  Harry doesn't need any more blood on his hands.
>  

  I agree!  Voldie becoming a muggle would be a profound poetic justice, 
however, I can't imagine Harry going along with something public like an 
execution.  Harry isn't bloodthirsty and doesn't have the stomach for 
something like that.  Even with his intense hatred of Voldemort, I can't 
imagine Harry endorsing somehting like that.  I cam see him killing Voldemort 
if it was done quickly and cleanly.  Not torture-style.  There would 
undoubtledy be many people who would argue for the public beheading, but even 
thought Harry has more reason than anyone, I don't think he would support 
that.  Dumbledore either, for that matter, if he's still alive.   Maybe 
Snape, and definately Sirious, but not Harry.

   ~~~LYSA~~~




From kishkila75 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 12:42:42 2002
From: kishkila75 at yahoo.com (nuriaobradors)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:42:42 -0000
Subject: New Member
Message-ID: <aa6983+dt0s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38124

Hello to all!

My name is N?ria, I'm 27, from Argentina (yes, our country IS as
bad 
as news show). Though I was somewhat curious about Harry Potter, 
after seeing the movie I rushed to the bookstore to get the books, in 
british version, and read them all in a row. Then, I read them again. 
I hope to have fun in this group, as I'm practically the only HP fan 
of my age among my friends and relatives. 
Well, I've never been good at introducing myself, please cope with me!
:-)
Cheers, 

Nuri





From caliburncy at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 19:02:42 2002
From: caliburncy at yahoo.com (caliburncy)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:02:42 -0000
Subject: Snape as Enneagram Type 1 (was Re: Neville/Snape Question)
In-Reply-To: <aa6kbj+2orf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa6vgi+jier@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38125

Hi,

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> wrote:
> I would like to see a unified theory of Snape Bully-ism. Let's see
> if you can explain away, at one go, his treatment of Harry, Neville
> AND Hermione (not to mention his overall nastiness to practically
> everybody around him).

---and "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> replied:
> There is no unified theory, IMO.  Snape finds different reasons for
> being nasty to different people.  Because he's an inventive sort of
> person, and naturally predisposed to be nasty, he can find an
> infinite number of reasons.  Basically, Snape thinks people are
> scum -- but each separate person is scum in their own unique and
> special way. :-)

In a way, I think both of you are correct.  Marina, you are correct 
that Snape believes he has individual reasons for treating specific 
people the way he does.  And these reasons are quite accurate, to a 
certain extent.  But these are also primarily conscious reasons, and 
there are certainly some levels of delusion involved in our own 
understanding of our actions.  And beyond delusion, there is also 
subconscious identification.  It is quite valid to identify that 
Snape's malice towards Harry centers around James.  And beneath that, 
we can identify reasons for his malice toward James.  But beneath 
that, shouldn't there also be a more fundamental reason as to why 
those specific characteristics/actions of James affected Snape so 
negatively?  We are not all angered by precisely the same things.  So 
I suspect, perhaps, what Naama was asking was if there is some 
underlying personality trait or experience that explains Snape's 
worldview overall, and thereby the contrarian manner in which he 
approaches almost all human relationships, rather than the specific 
justifications we can provide (totally valid as they are) for each 
specific relationship.  And in this sense, I think Naama may also be 
correct that there is a sort of "unified theory", even if it's not 
the kind you were presumably talking about.

Pophyria offers up that Snape is misanthropic by nature (and I think 
Marina said something similar/identical earlier), and this is a good 
starting point.  But it doesn't give us insight into *why* he has a 
general hatred of humanity, it only recognizes that he does.  Now, 
I'm not going to try and sell everyone on a false proposition trying 
to explain how one traumatic, tear-jerking event in Snape's past 
shaped his entire worldview, because this is never strictly true of 
anyone, in such broad and all-encompassing terms.  But I am going to 
try to hit a little deeper than the "misanthropic" identification, 
and go for a root cause, even though I don't think the root cause 
here is an event at all.  In this case, the root cause, I think, has 
to do with personality type.  I recommend that anyone with sufficient 
interest in Snape's character go to their library and read up on the 
Enneagram Type 1 (especially in the Helen Palmer books).  Snape is, 
IMO, the spitting image of this Enneagram type, specifically its 
unhealthy traits.

There is not much point in my attempting to summarize here, because I 
will do a much more lousy job of it than any book on the subject 
will, and my explanation will probably be misleading.  But just to 
pique sufficient interest to warrant follow-up, let me explain that 
the Type 1 on the Enneagram is called the Perfectionist/Reformer 
(don't get too tied up in the semantics, however--they're often 
*very* misleading with regards to the Enneagram).  Type 1's are 
driven by a passion of anger and have a corresponding fixation of 
resentment.  Their attention tends to focus on any error that exists 
in their surroundings and the need to correct that, and they tend to 
view themselves under an extremely self-righteous lens.  They have a 
need to be right, a need to control.  They are rigid, judgmental, and 
critical.  They have a strong sense of ethics and are constantly 
monitoring others (even moreso than themselves) for violations of 
that sense of right and wrong.  They tend to be black and white 
thinkers.

Of course, they have many positive qualities as well, but I am 
focusing on some of the less healthy traits because these are the 
ones most prominent in Snape.

I really do mean it when I say that people interested in Snape should 
find out about this Enneagram type.  When it dawned on me one day 
that Snape fit this so aptly, it further illuminated to me, all in 
one package, many of his actions and thoughts with regards to 
Neville, Harry, James and the rest of MWPP, Hermione.  It also 
explains why he is a Potions master, why he is so good at it, why he 
is a teacher.  It might also be used to illuminate his relationship 
with McGonagall, and with Dumbledore, and to explain why Lockhart 
ticks off Snape more than Lockhart ticks off anyone else (except 
perhaps the reader).

In a way, all of this is quite obvious, and I knew it all before I 
made the Enneagram connection.  One certainly does not have to be 
familiar with the Enneagram, in order to recognize these tendencies 
and fundamental characteristics in Snape.  But seeing it on paper so 
accurately tends to make the truth of it resonate more clearly, so 
even if you (like myself) thinks this sounds self-evident, consider 
checking it out anyway.

-Luke (Enneagram Type 5: The Observer, for those of you that I know 
now became curious)




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 19:06:40 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:06:40 -0000
Subject: Rule-breaking/Father-figures
In-Reply-To: <aa3n90+8fur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa6vo0+fsr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38126

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> 
> While I'm with you on all the other examples, I have to disagree on
> this one.  Just because Harry has understandable emotional reasons 
for
> wanting to go to Hogsmeade, doesn't mean he's entitled to blow off 
the
> rules and go.  "I tried to get permission, couldn't, and went 
anyway"
> is not an excuse.

He tried to ask for help due to having been held by people who 
neglect him to the point of violating his human rights. His request 
was ignored. He wasn't even heard properly.

> McGonagall (and Dumbledore, on whose authority she's
> acting) is more than qualified to set and enforce the rules for what
> the students in her house get to do, and to decide what needs to be
> done to protect a 13-year-old boy who's in her care.
>  It *is* about
> Harry being exempt for his safety -- and not just his own safety,
> either; as far as the adults knew, he was being targeted by a 
powerful
> Dark Wizard who has already demonstrated a willingness to kill large
> numbers of innocent bystanders.

Why didn't McGonagall tell Harry that? Harry was protesting against 
rule - tried to explain about Dursleys neglect of him (denying him 
things every child is entitled to, like understanding) but he was 
ignored.

She just kept insisting on "permission of a guardian or parent" 
because it makes issues of responsibility smoother with the 
guardians/parents. While she *can* and perhaps should do that at 
times, she's handling it all wrong.

Harry's not heard properly - even if you stick to rules, the child 
you've enforcing it should be heard when they ask to.

In a way, Harry's now feeling much the same as when he left Dursleys. 
*Because* of not being even listened to. Going to Hogsmeade became a 
symbol of his right to exist, of *being* somebody. Recognition that 
he's just as valuable as others.

Emotionally, McGonagall told him: "Without guardians' giving you 
permission you're nobody. You're lower than others"...

>  Yes, the situation was painful and
> unfair for Harry.

"What isn't fair and just can not be law" - from instructions to 
judges in a Finnish Law-book. If we're judging Harry's behaviour, 
I'll take *that* on account.

  But there are times when saying "it's not fair, so
> I'll just do what I want" is not the appropriate response, and this
> was one of those times.  Even Lupin recognized that, despite his
> sympathy for Harry.

Saying it - no. This *was* an unfair situation. Lupin handled it a 
bit better -  but he, too, failed to notice the *real* problem. He's 
giving Harry an obligation: To pay up for his right to live to his 
parents who died to save him (by obeying rules unless someone's in 
danger?). This will give Harry someone's approval of his being who 
and what he is.

Of course, Lupin knew Harry's parents and had been more caring than 
any one else. But he's still expecting something. (As Harry sees it: 
Admitting he *has* no guardian by not going to Hogsmeade as payment 
for his parents' sacrifice so he could live. A bit better, but it 
doesn't fix the *problem*. It's saying Harry's obligated to *pay* for 
being loved).

Once Harry discovers Sirius is his godfather... *Sirius* immediately 
*gives* Harry what he really needed - expecting nothing, only asking 
that Harry accepts it. Sirius *gives* it all freely without Harry 
ever having to so much as ask. Hogsmeade note loses it's meaning as 
symbol to the letter from Sirius, saying he wants to be there for him.
Without Lupin and Sirius Harry would, as I see it, been in grave 
danger of deep depression (not only because of the Dementors) and 
probably suicide as after effect.

In this case- unjust rule was *causing* danger rather than preventing 
it. Sirius was only one realising it, having seen what depression can 
do - and did what he could to help Harry be happy.

-- Finwitch





From nobradors at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 24 18:59:41 2002
From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:59:41 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <CC1E0983-57A5-11D6-A55E-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <aa6vat+cpv3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38127

nups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
> Naama wrote:
> The amount of energy put into defending Snape I find quite touching
> (if somewhat alarming),

I can only speak for me, so here's my theory: We know but a small 
part of Snape. Every inch we get to know of him in each book just 
turns him more mysterious. And mystery, as forbidden things, is 
always attractive. Do I like Snape? NO, but I do believe we still 
have a lot to see of him. 
Perhaps he spent his whole schooling in Hogwarts being disdained by 
his non-slytherin fellow students, and he takes it back with his own 
pupils now? It is no news that slytherins aren't really popular among 
any but themselves. 

Porphyria wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm misreading you here, but if you think that by 
> "focusing on one of his victims" somehow lays the blame on Harry, 
> Hermione, or Neville, then this is simply not the case. I think t's 

I think that rather than Snape focusing in one of his victims, it's 
rather JKR focusing on Snape's hatred for Harry & friends. Even 
though Snape's grudge for Harry is real, I don't think he teases 
Harry's friends more than other students. Or is anyone dying to know 
how he bullies Justin Flinch-Fletchley, Cho Chang or Colin Creevey, 
for instance?(well, maybe the Colin part would be fun...)

>b) Hermione infuriates him because he feels her interruptions 
>undermine his authority, 

he's probably afraid that she outwits him, too... I'm sure there's 
insecurity lurking behind that fiercy outside.

>c) Harry infuriates him because he feels resentful that Harry took 
>all the credit for defeating LV when Snape was busy risking his life 
>to do the same thing, plus he (mistakenly) thinks Harry is reckless, 
>arrogant, etc. 

James gets in the middle here, too, IMO. James was popular in school, 
Snape hated him sp. after the marauders' "joke", I'm suer he would've 
loved that James' son could not be up to his father, and instead he 
faces a Harry who's a hero since before he could talk! OTOH, I'm not 
sure Snape *believes* Harry's reckless and arrogant - Probably he 
just does it as a way to teach Harry (the tough way, Snape's way) 
that there will always be people out there who have the wrong idea 
about you. I know this doesn't sound very consistent, but it's really 
a sensation I've got.

> A unified theory? IIRC, Fred and George provide a useful enough one 
>of these: he hates everyone and he's seen everything. Doesn't this 
>go without saying? Snape is misanthropic by nature, I suspect he 
>came from a Dark Arts family who probably raised him (through fine 
>example) to have little regard for his fellow man. 

Or perhaps was raised in a way where no emotions were shown and no 
affection given to him (Draco's emotions are not directed precisely 
in the right way, but he's obviously received some odd "love", "care" 
and "support" demostrations from his parents). Thus, Snape doesn't 
know how to show sympathy to anyone. He's probably very insecure and 
if it wasn't for his pride, he well could be a Neville (Could we have 
a reason for his hatred towards Longbottom here? He reminds him what 
could have been of himself?)

> Snape's scarred and angry personality is one of the reasons that I 
> find it hard to believe that he actually is fond of Draco and that 
> his evident kindness to him is not due to some tactical reason to  
> keep Lucius happy, for example. 

Or, if he really knows who's worth and who isn't, inflating Draco's 
ego would be a good way to make that nasty kid REALLY miserable when 
someone finally rubs his face in the dirt (er, yes, I hate Draco, 
Don't like him at all. Snape's an angel compared to that #@%&*!)

cheers, 

Nuri

-I'm 27, from Argentina, just joined today!-





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 20:16:37 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:16:37 -0000
Subject: Finishing Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <29.261b99d8.29f81e5e@cs.com>
Message-ID: <aa73r5+t26a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38128

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., ComtessadeChats at c... wrote:
> Voldie becoming a muggle would be a profound poetic justice, 
> however, I can't imagine Harry going along with something public 
> like an execution.  Harry isn't bloodthirsty and doesn't have the 
> stomach for something like that.  Even with his intense hatred of 
> Voldemort, I can't imagine Harry endorsing somehting like that.  I 
> cam see him killing Voldemort if it was done quickly and cleanly.  
> Not torture-style.  There would undoubtledy be many people who 
> would argue for the public beheading, but even thought Harry has 
> more reason than anyone, I don't think he would support that.  
> Dumbledore either, for that matter, if he's still alive.   Maybe 
> Snape, and definately Sirious, but not Harry.

Of course, if you remember Draco Malfoy's speech early in the first 
book about how horrifying it would be to be a Hufflepuff, of all 
things, you can imagine a self-loathing a million times greater if 
Voldemort truly lost all of his power--not just the extra power he'd 
worked to acquire and the near-immortality, but if he were in fact a 
plain old Muggle.  I hardly think an execution of any kind would be 
necessary.  I strongly suspect then that a nice handy cliff for him 
to fall of or a vial of poison are things he would immediately seek 
to put him out of his Muggle misery.  (Perhaps this is where that 
sword could come in handy, Pippin, as he could grab it and fall on 
it.)  

An alternative to suicide for Voldemort's demise could, of course, 
be the same kind of arrogance that led to his losing his power on 
the night Harry's parents died.  If, after losing his power, his 
life is in danger and Harry's first impulse is to save a life, not 
take it, but he refuses the help out of pride, mistrust or both, 
that could be how he eventually leaves this world.  Could you see 
him trusting Harry enough to let him save him?  

Either suicide or the second alternative would, of course, induce 
Dumbledore to remind Harry about our choices making us who we are, 
etc. as a fitting epitaph for everything that went before.  I like 
to think Dumbledore will survive Harry's seven years in school.  I 
also like the idea of Voldemort ultimately causing his own end, so 
that poor Harry won't have his blood on his hands (even as 
satisfying as that would be, in some ways).

--Barb
  
http://groups.yahoo.com/HP_Psych
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Wed Apr 24 20:18:27 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:18:27 -0000
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again
In-Reply-To: <20020424154130.37391.qmail@web20404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <aa73uj+59j2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38129

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., ladjables <ladjables at y...> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I unfortunately had to miss the rest of the house-elf
> argument.  In discussing the similarity of the
> house-elf experience to slavery, I originally omitted
> some points.  If these have already been discussed in
> my absence, apologies in advance; I seem to be missing
> a huge chunk of mail between mid-March and mid-April.
> 
><snip: pro-elf liberation theory>
> 
> Ama, who'll be wearing her sabots, H.E.L.F. T-shirt
> and beret, and terrifying the patrons in general with
> her sudden outbursts on revolution.

As much as I'm itching to discuss your magnificent post with you, all 
of the people who were involved in the thread of elf slavery have 
agreed to wait until the official discussion arrives (I think Monday 
next week), as one of Nel's points is exactly about it.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who is polishing his arguments and making them as iron-cast 
as he can manage.





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 24 20:32:41 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:32:41 -0000
Subject: Rule-breaking/Father-figures
In-Reply-To: <aa6vo0+fsr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa74pa+lu5m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38130

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:

> > McGonagall (and Dumbledore, on whose authority she's
> > acting) is more than qualified to set and enforce the rules for
what
> > the students in her house get to do, and to decide what needs to
be
> > done to protect a 13-year-old boy who's in her care.
> >  It *is* about
> > Harry being exempt for his safety -- and not just his own safety,
> > either; as far as the adults knew, he was being targeted by a 
> powerful
> > Dark Wizard who has already demonstrated a willingness to kill
large
> > numbers of innocent bystanders.
> 
> Why didn't McGonagall tell Harry that? Harry was protesting against 
> rule - tried to explain about Dursleys neglect of him (denying him 
> things every child is entitled to, like understanding) but he was 
> ignored.

McGonagall had valid safety reasons for ignoring Harry's request. 
Yes, she should've addressed this issue properly with Harry, and she
didn't.  It was wrong of her not to explain exactly why she was
enforcing the rule.  That doesn't mean it was wrong of her to enforce
it in the first place.


> >  Yes, the situation was painful and
> > unfair for Harry.
> 
> "What isn't fair and just can not be law" - from instructions to 
> judges in a Finnish Law-book. If we're judging Harry's behaviour, 
> I'll take *that* on account.

"What isn't fair and just" is a question that needs to be determined
by more than one teenage boy's emotional reaction.  The situation was
not simplistic.  There is nothing inherently unfair about a rule that
requires children to get a guardian's permission to go on an outing. 
In Harry's case, the rule did put him at an unfair disadvantage -- but
I have no doubt that if Black hadn't been on the loose, McGonagall
and/or Dumbledore would've given him permission to go.  Since Black
*was* on the loose, it was fair of them to make him stay -- but unfair
to fail to properly explain their reasons.  This combination of pros
and cons means that this is not a situation where Harry was justified
in just arbitrarily tossing the rule book out the window.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From asilaite at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 24 20:48:29 2002
From: asilaite at hotmail.com (anavenc)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:48:29 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <aa6kbj+2orf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa75mt+lc3h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38131

Naama wrote:

> > would like to see a unified theory of Snape Bully-ism. Let's see 
if 
> > you can explain away, at one go, his treatment of Harry, Neville 
AND 
> > Hermione (not to mention his overall nastiness to practically 
> > everybody around him). 
> 
Marina answered:

 There is no unified theory, IMO.  Snape finds different reasons for
> being nasty to different people.  Because he's an inventive sort of
> person, and naturally predisposed to be nasty, he can find an 
infinite
> number of reasons.  Basically, Snape thinks people are scum -- but
> each separate person is scum in their own unique and special way. :-


I (and many other people *g*) always thought that Snape's nasty 
attitude is caused by self-loathing.  He makes sure that people start 
hating him on his own terms, way before they see his repulsive (he 
thinks) true face and run away in horror. A neurotic way to deal with 
the fear of rejection, IMO.

Cheers,

Ana 





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Wed Apr 24 21:19:11 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:19:11 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Enneagram Type 1 and other Enneagram Types/characters
References: <aa6vgi+jier@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001601c1ebd5$ae21d9e0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38132

>I recommend that anyone with sufficient 
interest in Snape's character go to their library and >read up on the 
Enneagram Type 1 (especially in the Helen Palmer >books).  Snape is, 
IMO, the spitting image of this Enneagram type, >specifically its 
unhealthy traits.

^_^ What a coincidence! I was just researching Enneagram types myself today (I too am a 5) and noticed the same similarities between Snape and an unhealthy 1.  Abrasive, indignant, self-righteous, intolerant -- all these traits fit my view of Snape to a tea.  A website I was looking at also mentions that 1's are likely to develop depressive personality disorders -- which I can definitely see happening to Snape.  The only thing that doesn't match up is the fact that 1's are supposed to be very moral and into rules.  Certainly joining the Death Eaters doesn't exactly portray this, although if Snape *perceived* their objectives to be Right, then maybe.  Also, his determinedness to cause the Marauders trouble manifested itself in attempts to catch them at rule-breaking...so perhaps that trait fits as well.

Also interesting is that Dumbledore seems to show signs of being a *very* healthy 1. http://enneagraminstitute.com says 1's at their best at "[...]extraordinarily wise and discerning. By accepting what is, they become transcendentally realistic, knowing the best action to take in each moment. Humane, inspiring, and hopeful: the truth will be heard."  The website also lists a number of traits that fit Dumbledore rather well.

So, perhaps the fact that Dumbledore continues to see Good in Snape, although most would not, is the result of the fact that Dumbledore sees that Snape is actually a unhealthy version of himself, and knows the potential our prickly Potions Master has.

Hermione's got 1 type traits as well -- as far as her adherence the to rules has gone (although she really is just as bad as Harry and Ron by the time GoF roles around).  But perhaps she's a 3.  She's got the need for success and the hardworking parts down pat -- although I think this type is more descriptive of a particularly driven Hufflepuff than Hermione.  Maybe a 5?  I don't know.  To me, it seems that, although she definitely has a large fear of failure (remember the Bogart?), her amazing devotion to learning absolutely everything about absolutely everything stems more from the desire to gain knowledge than the fear of failing.  And this is pretty much a 5 trait all the way.  So I'd have to say 5.  Anyone agree/disagree?

Molly's probably a 2...ultimate mother -- you know. I'd say Ron is a 4...slightly on the unhealthy side.

Harry's pretty obviously an 8.  http://www.enneagramcentral.com/testc.htm describes healthy 8's as being "honest, direct, touchingly gentle with the weak and often display an unguarded innocence, especially in a context of nature".  Just basically a hero.  Which makes sense, because that's what Harry is.  Interestingly, I see large similarities between Harry's personality and the way many writers choose to portray King Arthur -- the greatest hero of all time.

As for the unhealthy side of the 8 type, Harry shows some of these traits as well.  Enneagram Central says that when 8's become unhealthy "[...]They become more vengeful instead of seeking justice. They pump up their power and can't acknowledge vulnerability."  This is basically Harry's reaction to being pushed too far.  Towards the end of PS/SS *and* in CoS he decides to go after the Stone/into the Chamber with no regard to his own safety, because he or his loved ones have been threatened.  And in PoA, his reaction to finding out about Sirius's "betrayal" is precisely this.  He is uncompromising, vengeful, and full of a single-minded desire to get back at Black.  Of course, at the last moment, his "healthy" traits of fairness, etc. take back over, but for a bit there -- he was quite out of control. 

Voldemort is also probably an 8 -- although severely unhealthy.  Listen to this:

"Develop delusional ideas about their power, invincibility, and ability to prevail: megalomania, feeling omnipotent, invulnerable. Recklessly over-extending self. / If they get in danger, they may brutally destroy everything that has not conformed to their will rather than surrender to anyone else. Vengeful, barbaric, murderous. Sociopathic tendencies."

There's our Voldy, eh?  I wonder if the fact that Harry and he are opposite sides of the same personality will become important in the future.  Perhaps Harry will be pushed into taking on the unhealthy traits as a result of Voldemort's attack on him and the ones he loves.  I wonder if this happens -- who will be hurt because of it?  Because if Harry descends to that level (even if he eventually comes to his senses), someone he loves *will* be hurt.  Perhaps this has to do with the "difficult death" that JKR speaks of?  Perhaps one of Harry's friends will die as a result of Harry becoming single-minded in his attempts to stop Voldy?

hmm... 

laura ...who has just finished reading that 5's have a tendency toward schizoid traits and personality disorders and is remembering that her Keirsey type (INTP) also names these disorders as potential problems..

*thinking* You know...and my grandmother has got schizophrenia...I wonder if I should be worried?  It only hits until you're around 20 years old...*scary thought* 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Apr 24 18:40:56 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:40:56 -0000
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #4--Will HP become classic?
In-Reply-To: <aa1d13+cg1b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa6u7o+itjc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38133

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jayseeweezer" <jweaver at s...> 
wrote:

>>>I think the discussion of whether or not the Potter novels 
are/will be classics is a little premature?we've only seen four of 
the seven and it appears that after two years JKR has hit 
something of a wall? until the series is resolved I think it's a little 
early for judgment!<<<<

Lots of acknowledged classics  are incomplete, either because 
they were never finished or because parts of them were lost over 
time.  Think Mozart's Requiem, or the 'Venus di Milo'. 

What makes a classic though? According to my dictionary, it's a 
work of the first rank, or of enduring value, or one which serves 
as a model for others, or a work dating from the classical period 
of Greece and Rome. The last definition is the oldest, which 
makes me wonder. Since most of us no longer look back to even 
a hypothetical golden age, does the whole concept of classics 
make any sense? What difference does it make whether a work 
from our own time is labelled a classic or not? (replies to 
OT-Chatter).

Luke asked:
>> does Harry Potter hold something special to set it apart?<<

One thing which really strikes me as an innovation about HP and 
I think might influence others is the way JKR has managed to 
integrate the genders. She has posited a magical fantasy world 
which is not at all futuristic but which is calmly egalitarian:  no 
disguised-as-male or semi-clad warrior princesses toting 
breastplates here, thank you very much. I think the concept falls 
down a little in execution because JKR hesitates between her 
egalitarian principles and the desire to take a poke at  real-life  
heirarchies in education, sports and government, which are still 
goshdernitall male. Then to avoid  male-bashing she has to 
invent counterexamples, Lupin for Snape, Dumbledore for 
Fudge, etc.. The wizarding world ends up looking  like a man's 
world despite the author's intentions. Hermione is interesting 
though. I really can't think of another series with a boy lead 
character that presents a girl on such equal terms. Can anyone?

Pippin




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 24 21:20:02 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:20:02 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <aa75mt+lc3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa77i2+12l2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38134

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "anavenc" <asilaite at h...> wrote:

> I (and many other people *g*) always thought that Snape's nasty 
> attitude is caused by self-loathing.  He makes sure that people
start 
> hating him on his own terms, way before they see his repulsive (he 
> thinks) true face and run away in horror. A neurotic way to deal
with 
> the fear of rejection, IMO.

It's a valid theory -- I can definitely see how people might think
that -- but it's not the sense I get from Snape.  I do think he feels
a great deal of guilt for his DE past, but I don't think this guilt
has translated into self-loathing.  To me Snape comes across as
someone who's quite aware of his own worth -- his intelligence, his
potions expertise, his loyalty to Dumbledore's cause -- and who
resents that other people don't respect these more.  (FWIW, I think
he's aware of many of his flaws, too, but doesn't consider them
important.  "Yeah, I'm mean to people.  Get over it!  Or, better yet,
take the hint and GO AWAY!")  I don't think Snape gives a crap about
being liked, but he does seem to care about being respected -- and to
think that he deserves respect.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 24 21:24:23 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:24:23 -0000
Subject: Draco in Potions (was Barty Crouch Jnr)
In-Reply-To: <aa6mtg+su7i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa77q7+i8q0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38135

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> 
> We do get multiple instances of Snape praising his work--he doesn't 
> praise any other student, not even other Slytherins.  While 
Hermione 
> probably does everything perfectly both in practice and theory 
> (written tests and papers) I'm still guessing that Snape gives 
> Malfoy the top marks in the class.  He may or may not deserve it or 
> be as good as Hermione; that's another debate.  But in Potions, at 
> least, he does seem to know what he's doing.  Snape would have to 
do a lot of backpedaling to justify praising someone who was 
> incompetent or merely adequate.
> 

Just the smallest of nitpicks: in CoS papa Malfoy reminds his son 
that Hermione had "beat" him in every exam. So, presumably, she got 
higher marks than Draco in Potions as well. 
Aside from that, I agree that Draco is probably quite good at 
potions. In fact, my impression is that he is a good student all 
around. Possibly his self confidence has something to do with this 
impression? In any case, he is smart, ambitious. There's actually no 
reason why he shouldn't be a good student, right?

Naama




From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 24 22:02:41 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:02:41 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <CC1E0983-57A5-11D6-A55E-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <aa7a21+13q2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38136

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:

> 
> Forgive me if I'm misreading you here, but if you think that by 
> "focusing on one of his victims" somehow lays the blame on Harry, 
> Hermione, or Neville, then this is simply not the case. 

No no no. That's not what I meant. I should have been more explicit. 
What I meant was, that by focusing on his ill-treating one student, 
people manage to come up with quite reasonable excuses for him. He 
ill-treats Harry because of his unrequited love for his mother and 
his jealousy of his father. Which makes him sound quite human and 
even tragic. He ill-treats Neville because he feels guilty about 
having failed to save his parents (?!). He ill-treats Hermione 
because ... umm ok, I don't remember the ingenious explanations for 
that one, but they were there, and made him sound quite human as 
well. See? It's a clever technique, breaking the whole picture into 
little pieces and then explaining each piece separately. But the 
point about Snape is that he is *generally* nasty. That's why, for 
me, it's not really interesting to wonder about his behaviour to this 
or that student (except Harry, who is a special case even for Snape). 
People grate on him, yes, but the reasons are unimportant. That's the 
hallmark of a bully, isn't it? Like wife beaters - the tea isn't hot 
enough, or you smiled at the neighbour, or you stayed out too late... 
They're triggers, not reasons for his actions. 


Naama
wondering what the latin is for "tickling sleeping Snape fans" (and 
how dangerous is it exactly) <g>





From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 22:16:52 2002
From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:16:52 -0000
Subject: Snape is a mean, ugly shnook. 
Message-ID: <aa7ask+j3l5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38137

Snape grew up with a lot of hate.  He drifted, as so many hate-filled 
people do, into a hate group.  At first it was great.  A little 
torture, a little imperious curse, a little vandalism was fun.  Then 
the murders started.  He was horrified, but by now he was in over his 
head.  Dumbledore offered him a lifeline out.  At great personal 
risk, he managed to escape.  Dumbledore gave him a job, trust, and  --
 most important -- his self-respect back.  There is simply no way he 
is going to louse that up by going back to a psycho!

He is still a mean, ugly shnook, however.  He is not nice.  He is not 
pretending.  He doesn't do it to prod people into doing better.  He 
does it because he is mean, spiteful, and hateful.  To quote 
Quirrell, "Oh, he does (hate you), but he never wanted you *dead*!"

Marcus





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 19:27:37 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:27:37 -0000
Subject: Snape as Enneagram Type 1 (was Re: Neville/Snape Question)
In-Reply-To: <aa6vgi+jier@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa70v9+c50p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38138

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "caliburncy" <caliburncy at y...> wrote:

Snape's always seeing the worst in *everyone*. Dumbledore is only one 
he trusts - and maybe not even him so much...

He knew more curses than most 7th years when coming to school...

I don't think it's any single event. I think it's more like that his 
needs weren't fulfilled fast enough when he was a baby -- this causes 
him not having basic trust for himself or anyone else. He's been 
expected too much, made feel guilty over failing to fulfill 
expectations etc...

-- Finwitch





From nova_glitterfreak at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 21:50:04 2002
From: nova_glitterfreak at yahoo.com (Nova Glitterfreak)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rule-breaking/Father-figures
In-Reply-To: <aa74pa+lu5m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020424215004.71451.qmail@web14507.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38139

--- marinafrants <rusalka at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I have no doubt that if Black hadn't been on the
> loose, McGonagall
> and/or Dumbledore would've given him permission to
> go.  

Hello all. I am a new member and a first-time poster.
I'm truly enjoying all the discussions here.

Anyway, I just wanted to respond to one little tiny
point that Marina made. She aserts that
McGonagall/Dumbledore would've given Harry permission
to go into Hogsmeads had Black not been on the loose.
I have to disagree--I can't imagine a situation where
a child without a signed permission slip from a
parent/guardian would be allowed to attend any sort of
trip outside school grounds. If something were to
happen to him, they and Hogwarts would be held
responsible. Perhaps this is an unfair comparison, but
I can certainly remember situations in grade school
where kids who didn't have signed permission slips
could not go on "field trips," no matter how much they
wanted to or how unfair it seemed. A small point, I
know...

thanks for listening--

Nova



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 24 22:20:47 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:20:47 -0000
Subject: Draco in Potions
In-Reply-To: <007801c1ebb8$722c4be0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <aa7b3v+1koj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38140

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" <feliciarickmann at d...> 
wrote:
>  I'm still guessing that Snape gives Malfoy the top marks in the 
> class.  He may or may not deserve it or be as good as Hermione; 
> that's another debate.  But in Potions, at least, he does seem to 
> know what he's doing.  Snape would have to do a lot of backpedaling 
> to justify praising someone who was incompetent or merely adequate.

So how difficult is potions as a subject and how good a teacher is 
Snape? From the stories I'm guessing that exams up through fourth 
year they were graded on potions that they could make in an hour. 
Despite Snape's abuse Neville is able to pass as are the 
Neanderthalic Crabbe and Goyle.

I mean it's not the hardest subject.  Even up through fourth year 
(GofF) the class hasn't done any potions as difficult as Polyjuice 
Potion which HRH succeeded in creating in SECOND YEAR!!!

> I always get the impression that Draco is a bright student and that 
> his good marks may be justified.  However, his marks in other 
> classes are not always up to snuff;  see his father's comments in 
> the shop on his poor performance. This may be because he could not  
> get away with trouble-making, say, in Tranfiguration the way he 
> does in Potions.  * Conjures  - put downs - McGonagall would employ 
> on Malfoy and grins * Sometimes the brightest students in the class 
> are the ones who fool around most because they are bored and can't 
> be bothered.

Is Draco bright? Certainly by comparison to Crabbe and Goyle, but 
considering he's the poster-boy of a House whose chief quality 
is 'ambition', where does he he spend his energy?

In books 1 and 2, despite the MASSIVE amounts of time HRH spend in 
the library researching both the Sorceror's Stone and Heir of 
Slytherin, we never see Malfoy doing any sort of homework. His main 
focus of energy in ChoS seems to be buying his way onto the Quidditch 
team, but doesn't work at it that much once he's on it.

In PofA, Malfoy puts more energy into faking his injury than getting 
good marks and in GofF his focus seems to be sucking up to Krum and 
making Harry miserable. Do you think he charmed the Potter Stinks 
buttons himself or just paid someone?

Hermione's high marks are by no means a given conclusion. Whenever we 
see her, she is reading and doing EXTRA work. Caould you picture 
Draco doing extra work for ANYTHING? His ambition seems to be to 
buully his way through on his father's name, not through any effort 
of his own (but than hard work is the Ravenclaw ideal, isn't it.)

Still, I'd like to see Draco evolve past the 1-dimensional bigot. I'd 
still like to see an intra-house competition beyond simple Quidditch. 
Maybe the Wizard's equivalent of Academic Bowl or something.




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 24 22:35:02 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:35:02 -0000
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound (WAS: Snape's Secret Snogging) 
In-Reply-To: <20020423031833.28886.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <aa7bum+34p3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38141

It is a beautiful, balmy, sun--baked day over in the regions of Canon 
Cove. The sky is cloudless and not a even a hint of a wave disturbs 
the smooth waters. All is quiet and peaceful. . . Huh, what? All? 
Well maybe not * all*. . . Almost unnoticeable a faint ripple 
distorts the flat surface of the calm waters. Canonical plausibility 
has been disturbed. Something is emerging from the deep.


Down, down, down in the abyss of the depths Captain Charis Julia of 
the rather battered and a bit the worse for wear 
C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. is swinging her periscope first left and 
then right. Suddenly she stops. "What's that?" she ask herself. "Why, 
a rock and . . . and a sailor standing on it!". One lone sailor in 
the middle of an endless ocean, standing on a rock and calling 
out: "Arabella! It could be Arabella! Snape might have been in love 
with Arabella!" Curiouser and curiouser. . . 

L. Terrell Gould, III wrote:

>Upon listening to PS/SS the other day (Jim Dale version), an odd and
>troubling thought popped into my head. It is mentioned, rather off 
>handedly as
>the narrator is listing reasons Harry hates it at her home, that 
>Mrs. Figg's
>house smells of cabbage. Cabbage? Well, of course, this could just 
>be to stress
>how old she is (I know quite a few "people of age" who have adopted 
>a rather
>:curious odor closely akin to cabbage), OR, adding to the pot the 
>fact that we
>"know" she is a witch (the very same Arabella Figg mentioned in 
>GoF), maybe the
>smell isn't cabbages at all, but brewing potions! Stay with me 
>here...... Ok,
>so the idea that Mrs. Figg may be very talented at potions, who 
>better to
>attract the oh-so-terribly-lonesome-heart of one....... Severus 
>Snape!

So, L. Terrell Gould, III, you think Snape might have had a 
girlfriend (other than Lily), do you? Hmmm, interesting. . . 


Now, see, normally I wouldn't broach this subject at all, not with 
the innocent at any rate, not with the uninitiated, 'cos you see it's 
really kinda, errrr, well, <Charis shifts uncomfortably in her seat>, 
well, kinda * taboo*. And, err if any of the Mods, or List Elves or 
Poltergeists happen to be hovering around. . . <faint shiver passes 
down back>. . . well, let's just not think about that, shall we? It 
doesn't matter anyway 'cos now all that's changed. Now, * now* I've 
got * cabbage*! You've given me * cabbage*! I mean, it's * cabbage*, 
and Mrs Figg * smells* of it. She smells of cabbage, and we all know 
that, it's stated in * Canon* and obviously, * obviously* this is 
important. It's way important. It's huge, astounding, momentous. It's 
Cabbage.


Huh? Whasat? What' s C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.? Good question. 
Well, to tell you the truth, it's a (fully ?legitimate, mind) SHIP. 
It's name stands for Contrary to Unrequited Passion Infelicitously 
Devouring Severus, Black's Love of Unknown Damsel Get's Expected 
Response. According to C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. Severus Snape fell 
for the same girl as Sirius Black. We had a quite interesting and 
also rather, hmm, funny and, well, yes, bordering on the silly 
discussion of this theory a while ago that quickly got rather, errr, 
wonky, as Cupid kept on adding to an ever?growing collection of 
Quidditch balls (Cupid's Snitch, C.U.P.I.D.'S.Q.U.A.F.F.L.E.), but 
<Charis hurriedly interjects> that merely proves it's unlimited 
adaptability, that does. We cater for all tastes.


What does all this have to do with Arabella Figg? Errr, well that's 
exactly were things start getting rather, well, sticky. It was about 
this time I recall that Elkins decided to pull a straight face and 
haul me over to the OT?Chatter. Hmmm, that of course was really 
because of E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S. (Excitable Love God's 
Irresponsible Negligence over Marauders' Affairs Results in Break?ups 
and Love?starved Educators Sorrowing), a perfectly respectable, 
though slightly, errr, unfounded and very <slight cough> * pink* 
suggestion that well, got wilder and wilder as it progressed. And, 
yes, it was banished. Excommunicated. <slight flinch> * Sunk*.


But <conciderably brighter> of course all this was ages ago. . . all 
b.C. (before Cabbage). Now, after armouring myself with the crispiest 
leaves (cabbage is flotsam, isn't it?), I feel brave enough to 
attempt a rescue mission for Arabella at least, if not the whole of 
E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S.


In E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S. I suggested ?albeit rather tongue?in?
cheek style?that the Mystery Girl could in fact be none other than 
the Fantastic Mrs. Figg, adopting the little old lady disguise in 
order to watch over Harry while he's at the Dursleys and shunning the 
wizarding world because Vold War I in combination with Friends 
Deaths, Boyfriend's Betrayal and Discovery of Admirer's Death?Eating 
Past drove her to Muggledom.


This proposal has the advantage of:
 

1) explaining Mrs Figg's generous embracing of the Muggle World 
despite almost all wizards' (even the Weasleys') rather condescending 
attitude towards non?magical people.


2) giving the books a witch in her 30's, of which breed there seems 
to be a conspicuous lack up till now in Canon


3) explaining Snape and Sirius's pre--PoA mutual abhorrence and 
providing the Prank with an believable backstory instead of the 
flimsy "slimy, oily, greasy?haired tell?tale that tried to get us 
expelled" story that Sirius seems to be stubbornly sticking to 
despite it's rather unflattering insinuations for his character.


4) having inexhaustible supplies of potential for future development 
as all characters involved are still actually * alive*.


5)offering the possibility of a new, more accepting and understanding 
wizarding appreciation of Muggles, which is truly in tune with the 
Light Side's anti?discrimination principles.

6)Managing to neatly wrap up into one wonderful theory both George 
and Big Bang (George playing Exploding Snap anyone?) as nobody is 
actually sugesting that love--affairs rule Snape's life, and only  
carefully calculated pressure at crucial cornerstones of his life is 
applied to nudge him in the right direction. Arabella, in my version 
of events, is merely the catalyst, not the cause of Snape's choises.

L. Terrell again:
>This theory (with Mrs.Figg) suits me because it means Snape might 
have a chance for >happiness in the future

Well, yeah, I guess you could have Arabella ending up with Snape in 
the end if you must, though personally I'd rather see her with 
Sirius. I like my Snape nasty and embittered. But, hey!, there's no 
accounting for taste, is there?

Incidentally if you're interested in looking up the full story behind 
my hurried presentation check out Messages 35144, 35156, 35303, 
35375, 35683, 35318 and attached answers from this Chamber and 9715 
and 9902 from the OT?Chatter.

Charis Julia, pointing out that it is in ship?wrecks that the most 
splendid treasures can be found.






From philnel at ksu.edu  Wed Apr 24 22:39:45 2002
From: philnel at ksu.edu (Philip Nel)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:39:45 -0500
Subject: Will HP become classic?
References: <1019686763.33245.95245.m8@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CC73430.7D78334A@ksu.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 38142

Regarding Eileen's (lucky_kari's) response to Hana:

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hana" <gohana_chan02 at l...> wrote:
> >  abigailnus said:
>
> > In terms of it being a classic, I think it depends on the context to
> some extent.  There is a university in western Canada (the University
> of Calgary I think, but I don't really remember) that is offering an
> >honours course about the Harry Potter phenomena.
>
> The University of Alberta in Edmonton. Very cool.

This comment (or "these comments," I should say) points to the role that "the Academy" -- i.e., Colleges and Universities -- play in whether or not a book becomes a classic.  It's true that there are courses devoted to Potter, and in the interests of full disclosure, I should add that I'm teaching one of those courses (syllabus can be found here: <http://www.ksu.edu/english/nelp/engl.s02/440.html>).  And, what's more, _Potter_ can be found in general children's literature courses and even in British literature courses.  Furthermore, there are several _Potter_ essay collections in the works -- at least one of those collections will be out this fall.  (Again, in the interests of honesty, I must admit to having an essay in one of the collections.)  One often sees papers and even entire panels on _Potter_ at
conferences.  The "Harry Potter" panel at last year's MLA (Modern Language Association) conference -- the *big* annual conference for English and Language profs. in North America -- was packed.  There were people sitting on the floor.  I'd guess that a room that holds one hundred was hosting about 150 people for that session.

The role that Professors play in creating literary canons is, of course, a separate question.  However, I'd be willing to cite the prominence of Potter in academe as evidence of its eventual status as "classic."  Why does it appeal to profs?  Because it's literary (love those allusions!), there are many layers to the novels, and because it's fun to read.  I could add a longer list, but I've got to run.  Just my two cents (or knuts, if you prefer).

Cheers,

Phil
--
Philip Nel
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Denison Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-0701
U.S.A.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.ksu.edu/english/nelp/
philnel at ksu.edu





From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 24 22:50:13 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:50:13 -0000
Subject: BIG PROBLEM WITH FOURTH MAN! HELP!
In-Reply-To: <a9kclo+8ota@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa7cr5+t6ah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38143

Charis Julia has been away on a hiking expedition. Ah, the 
rejuvenating mountain air! The green forests blanketing the peaks and 
slopes as far as the eye can see! The morning awakening to the sound 
of twittering song of the birds. . . Calm materialised!


She returns home exhilarated, relaxed, upbeat. She enters her 
bedroom, unpacks and settles down on the couch to peacefully read her 
backload of mail. She picks up the first letter (hmmm, from 
Eileen. . .) tears at the envelope, unfolds it and stares.


> I was about to explain fourth man to my brother, when he knocked a 
> whole in it that left me flabbergasted.
> 
> He said the fourth man is obviously the third Death Eater, dead in 
> Voldemort's service. And the more I thought about this the more 
> horrifically it made sense. 


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! No! No, no, no, no, no! Not Fourth Man, no! I like 
Fourth Man! I mean, ok, he's a bit S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.ish and all that 
yeah, but, still, I was rather keen anyway, and he, he had that cute 
little nervous tic in his left eye and he could have been Innocent 
you know, he could have, or at least, at least * Remorseful* and, 
and, and what about * me* anyway? I'm just a stowaway here, nobody 
even knows I'm on board, there won't even be a lifebelt for me, I'll, 
I'll. . . I'll * drown*!


We must do something. Yes, yes. We cannot allow this to happen. We 
shan't! Eileen, never fear! We can get passed this. It is just a 
minor upset, an insignificant little puncture that's easily reparable
-- hovercrafts don't just *burst * you know, all we need is some glue 
and Spellotape, and, and it's not like we're still stuck in that 
rickety, old * kayak* anymore is it? Is it?


Right. Fine. I can do this. I can. Let's, urrr, lets just look at the 
matter orthologically, shall we? No panicking, no upset, no premature 
mournful wailing over Avery's demise. Just need to be calm. Yes, 
calm. And logical. Or. . . or, no, maybe <wicked smile starts faintly 
brewing> hmmm, sophistic?


O.K., so your brother's suggestion, I must grudgingly admit, is 
certainly viable. Yes, it could indeed be that the Mysterious Fourth 
Man at the Pensieve trial and the Third Dead Guy are but the same DE. 
It's definitely plausible, yes. Canon does not seem to offer any 
basis for rejecting the hypothesis. Hmmm, on the other hand, however, 
neither does Canon specifically state at any point that the Fourth 
Man is _ not_ Avery, does it? And at the same time, though no solid 
support is presented for the Avery is Fourth Man theory, Forth Man Is 
Really Third is suffering from no less lack of canonical 
sustentation. They are both simply nothing more than * assumptions* 
and at this stage in the series the scale could proceed to lean 
either way. And, what's more, ?pay attention here!? if we do allow 
this really very small concession and grant Third Man some 
verisimilitude, ah, well, that is exactly how we can manage to 
sustain levitation till JKR comes round with a good Mobilinavis Charm.


A?ha! A-ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!


Right. DE roll?call:


According to my calculations (correct me if I'm wrong) up till now 
we've been given the names of 19 Death Eaters (I'm counting Quirell 
here). What became of each of them? Here's the full list as I make it:


I) Definitely in Azkaban:
The Lestranges and, initially at least, Barty Crouch Jr.

II) Dead:
Evan Rosier, Wilkies, Quirrell.

III) Released:
Igor Karkaroff.

IV) Acquitted:
Lucius Malfoy, Crabbe Sr., Goyle Sr., Nott, McNair (or is it Macnair? 
It's spelled both ways in my edition), Avery.

V) Of Uncertain Fate:
Travers, Mulciber, Augustus Rookwood and Antonin Dolohov

VI) In hiding:
Barty Crouch Jr. and Peter Pettigrew

VII) Turned spy:
Severus Snape


Besides this lot however six Voldemort supporters are mentioned in 
the books but not honoured with the distinction of a name: First of 
all Barty Jr.'s three fellow defendants and secondly the Three Dead 
Servicemen. I think we are all more or less in agreement that one of 
the men and the woman at the Crouch trial most probably are the 
Lestranges and it is also fair to assume that two of the deceased DEs 
must be Rosier and Wilkes. Everybody with me so far? Yes? Good.


So, the crucial question is "Who Are the Other Two Nameless DEs"?


Now, the way I see it Canon places very little restriction on our 
answer here. Really, if you examine the case with an open mind and * 
logically* they could be practically anybody. Anybody. * Anybody*. 
Yes, yes, they could indeed both be the same person. Granted. No 
arguments there. They could, they could. Ahhh, but they could also be 
* countless* other people as well. For starters any of the DEs Of 
Unknown Fate are fair game. Both the Fourth Man and the Third Man 
could be Travers, or Mulciber ,or Dolohov, or Rookwood. Or they could 
be somebody completely new who has not had any other mention in Canon 
whatsoever. Hell, you could mix things up ever further and claim that 
it was, say, Dolohov who was both at the Trial * and* subsequently 
died in Azkaban. And Fourth man in particular is open to an even 
wider range of possibilities. Why, he could be Nott, McNair, even, 
yes, Crabbe or Goyle! (What exactly did Voldemort mean by "doing 
better" anyway? What did they fail at at their last attempt? 
Retrieving their Master and aiding his reincarnation by extracting 
information from eminent Aurors maybe?)


Aaaaaand Fourth Man could also be Avery. Does Canon dispute it? Does 
it proffer one shred of evidence that goes against the idea? No, 
Charis states firmly. It does not.


So, you see Eileen, Fourth Man as Third does not in actual fact burst 
our hovercraft. Quite to the opposite it is in reality nothing more 
than a conformation of the very premise that is essential, * vital* 
for the survival of Avery As Fourth Man. For Avery As Fourth Man 
Fourth Man As Third is just like lighting a match in a confined 
space: at first the flame may alarm, but in fact it is nothing more 
than a reassurance that there is in fact oxygen down the twisting, 
turning tunnel of canonical intrigue. The deciding challenge is not 
to prove whether this proposal or the next is * possible*, but which 
is the most * credible*.


And Avery as Fourth Man is, to my mind,_ definitely_ the most 
credible possibility. There are innumerable reasons why this is so 
all already beautifully presented during the original Fourth Man 
thread and which I need only briefly allude to now: 


Wrapping up Avery's Fourth Man debut Elkins observed:

>It explains Avery's hysteria in the graveyard. It explains the 
>otherwise inexlicable anonymity of that mysterious fourth co-
>defendent. And it also explains Voldemort's utter lack of mention of 
>the Fourth Man during the graveyard scene. He's overflowing with 
>praise for Crouch, and for the Lestranges, and yet he never even 
>mentions the fourth guy? 


Does Fourth Man As Third do all these things I ask. Does it? Does it, 
huh, huh, does it?


Does it further complicated and ingenious characterization by 
explaining Avery's inexplicable masochistic outburst at the 
graveyard ? NO! Does it give anyone any name? NO! Does it explain 
Voldemort's favourism of Barty and the Lestranges over their 
mysterious accomplice? NO! No,no,no,no,no!


And there's more too. Eileen wrote:

>And, why doesn't he mention the fourth man... well, because the 
> fourth man is the third man, since dead at Azkaban, dead in V's 
> service.

No, no, no, Eileen. You've got it all wrong. Look at it this way: If 
the two other dead guys really are Rosier and Wilkes, how come the 
Mysterious Forth Man who actually * gave his life* in the effort to 
re?establish his Lord doesn't get praised to the point of revulsion 
like the Lestrages? How come he gets shunted along to stand alongside 
a couple of losers, two * washouts* who couldn't even take on a 
measly Auror or two successfully? It just doesn't make sense.


Furthermore: as we all know it is absolutely indisputable that Avery 
Really Is Very Important. I mean, that * is* the one thing that's 
sure in the books, isn't it? There's not a shadow of a doubt about * 
that*, there can't be. Ron may turn Evil, Crouch Jr. could have been 
innocent and Hermione might date Victor Krum, but Avery most 
definitely, absolutely, possitively is * The* Most Important 
Personality in the entire book. And does FMAT explain this? Does it? 
Does it? No!


Last but not least:
The starting point for Avery As Fourth Man was that the anonymous co?
defendant in the Crouch case has actually made another appearance in 
the first four books and that this alter ego will startle everyone?
including Harry-- once revealed, thus furnishing OoP with it's very 
own Great Shock Moment. Does FMAT present such fascinating 
possibilities? No. The central hero to FMAT is dead, for Pete's sake! 
Dead, dead, dead. He doesn't allow for a single ounce of compelling 
future activity. Hey, he hardly even permits a decent backstory! 
Unless he proves really, really essential in the Longbottom incident 
(and personally I think Mrs Lestrage probably hogged all the action 
in that scene) he's complete hogwash! Now admittedly JKR does have a 
tendency towards rather ruthless handling her of no?longer?useful 
characters (Quirell, Lockhart, Barty Jr., Nicholas Flamel. . .) but 
killing someone off before they've even properly entered the plot is 
really going too far I think.


I mean, Eileen, well, don't tell your brother this or anything, but 
Fourth Man As Third is, well, it's just booooring! B?B?B?B?
Booooooring.

> Eileen, clutching at Avery, "HE'S MINE, I TELL YOU! PETTIGREW AND 
> MALFOY CAN'T HAVE HIM!"

Well, of course not! Rest at ease. We're safe. Errr, till Book 5 
comes out at least. . .


Charis Julia, who really enjoyed her weekend away, but still thinks 
there's no place like home and internet access.





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 24 23:15:35 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:15:35 -0000
Subject: Neville/Snape Question
In-Reply-To: <aa7a21+13q2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa7ean+25bd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38144

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Forgive me if I'm misreading you here, but if you think that by 
> > "focusing on one of his victims" somehow lays the blame on 
Harry, 
> > Hermione, or Neville, then this is simply not the case. 
> 
> No no no. That's not what I meant. I should have been more 
explicit. 
> What I meant was, that by focusing on his ill-treating one 
student, 
> people manage to come up with quite reasonable excuses for him. He 
> ill-treats Harry because of his unrequited love for his mother and 
> his jealousy of his father. Which makes him sound quite human and 
> even tragic. He ill-treats Neville because he feels guilty about 
> having failed to save his parents (?!). He ill-treats Hermione 
> because ... umm ok, I don't remember the ingenious explanations 
for 
> that one, but they were there, and made him sound quite human as 
> well. See? It's a clever technique, breaking the whole picture 
into 
> little pieces and then explaining each piece separately. But the 
> point about Snape is that he is *generally* nasty. 

The two are not mutually exclusive, though.  A person can be 
generally nasty and still have individual reasons for disliking 
various people.  This particular thread began with a question about 
Snape and Neville, so people are concentrating on that, but there 
have been plenty of threads about why he's generally nasty.  If you 
want to start up a new discussion on the subject, we Snapefans will 
be happy to oblige, though I can't guarantee we'll reach a 
consensus. :-)

> Naama
> wondering what the latin is for "tickling sleeping Snape fans" 
(and 
> how dangerous is it exactly) <g>

Silly child.  Snapefans never sleep!  CONSTANT VIGILANCE! Bwa-ha-ha-
ha-ha!!!!

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From kerelsen at quik.com  Wed Apr 24 23:28:25 2002
From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:28:25 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will HP become classic?
References: <1019686763.33245.95245.m8@yahoogroups.com> <3CC73430.7D78334A@ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <00a601c1ebe7$bc8fd4c0$3721b0d8@kerelsen>

No: HPFGUIDX 38145


----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Nel" <philnel at ksu.edu>

>>Furthermore, there are several _Potter_ essay collections in
the works -- at least one of those collections will be out this
fall.  (Again, in the interests of honesty, I must admit to
having an essay in one of the collections.)  >>

Would it be inappropriate to ask what the name of the collection
will be or who is putting it out?  As a Communications Student
with a love for literary commentary, I'd love to see what
Academia is saying about the HP books.

<<<One often sees papers and even entire panels on _Potter_ at
conferences.  The "Harry Potter" panel at last year's MLA (Modern
Language Association) conference -- the *big* annual conference
for English and Language profs. in North America -- was packed.
There were people sitting on the floor.  I'd guess that a room
that holds one hundred was hosting about 150 people for that
session.>>>

Would it be possible for you to do a separate report about the
panel and the things that were discussed there?  I'm sure I'm not
the only Potter fan on this group who would find it very
interesting.

<<The role that Professors play in creating literary canons is,
of course, a separate question.  However, I'd be willing to cite
the prominence of Potter in academe as evidence of its eventual
status as "classic."  Why does it appeal to profs?  Because it's
literary (love those allusions!), there are many layers to the
novels, and because it's fun to read.  I could add a longer list,
but I've got to run.  Just my two cents (or knuts, if you
prefer).>>

I, for one, really appreciate reading the discussion that is
springing from your questions that are being posted each week.  I
just regret that I have not been able to participate fully in the
discussions (for I do have my ideas about the various topics!)
due to my own end of semester workload.  Hopefully after finals
are over (I think I understand what panic Hermione must feel when
exam time comes along!) I'll be able to intelligently express my
ideas and opinions on the questions.

Thank you for enriching our discussion of the HP books.  As I
re-read them, I'm looking at them with new eyes--eyes open for
the allusions and layers and hidden things that pounce out at me
that I hadn't noticed were there before.

Bernadette

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Apr 24 23:29:56 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:29:56 -0000
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound (WAS: Snape's Secret Snogging)
In-Reply-To: <aa7bum+34p3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa7f5l+ko2j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38146

Charis Julia hypothesized:

> This proposal has the advantage of:
>  
> 
> 3) explaining Snape and Sirius's pre--PoA mutual abhorrence and 
> providing the Prank with an believable backstory instead of the 
> flimsy "slimy, oily, greasy?haired tell?tale that tried to get us 
> expelled" story that Sirius seems to be stubbornly sticking to 
> despite it's rather unflattering insinuations for his character.

Oh, my.  Charis is indeed onto something here.  Arabella Figg.  My, 
my.  This changes *everything*!

Way back when (well, actually about 2 months ago), we were 
frantically pairing Florence (Lestrange) with every available man in 
the wizarding world.  Not all at once, I mean.  In our speculation, 
she found a date with Sirius.  With Snape.  With Peter. 

But what about Arabella?  Dear, sweet, devoted Arabella.  Willing to 
live in a Muggle neighborhood for 11 long, dreary years.  Tripping 
over cats.  Eating stale cake.  Babysitting on demand for the 
obnoxious Dursleys.  All to look after Harry.  So loyal.  So 
protective, our Arabella.

So who would make the perfect match for dear Arabella?  Well, it 
certainly isn't Snape.  Vindictive, unattractive, mean-spirited, 
changing over to the Dark side and then back again.  No, that 
relationship has no potential, I'd say.

Ah, but Sirius and Arabella?  That is downright unassailable.  Aside 
from the character traits they share (the loyalty to Dumbledore and 
Harry, the protective nature), there's reason to believe that Sirius 
is *deeply* in love with Arabella.  Remember how Sirius escaped from 
Azkaban?  He somehow knew exactly the neighborhood where he could 
find Harry.  Sirius also inexplicably knows that Harry has been 
living with his aunt and uncle.  How could Sirius, locked in Azkaban 
for 12 years, know these details?  

Pillow talk, my friends.  Sirius escaped Azkaban and went straight to 
his old flame Arabella, and she told him where to find Harry and 
filled him in on the doings in Harry's life.  Arabella, bless her, 
never believed Sirius was guilty.  She knew him too well.  

Finally, we know that Sirius was sent to notify the old crowd of 
Voldemort's return, including Arabella.  That raises the question of 
how Dumbledore can be so sure Arabella won't turn Sirius in to MoM on 
sight?  The answer, I think, is that Arabella and Sirius go way back, 
so to speak.

Let's see.  So Sirius was a match with Arabella, Snape was with 
Trelawney, Peter was with Florence, and Remus . . . Rita Skeeter, of 
course.

Cindy (daring someone to find a canon SHIP for Lupin)




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Apr 24 23:56:34 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:56:34 -0000
Subject: BIG PROBLEM WITH FOURTH MAN! HELP!
In-Reply-To: <aa7cr5+t6ah@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa7gni+f94i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38147

Goodness!  I look away for a few moments and before you know it, the 
Fourth Man hovercraft is taking on water.  Ice cold water, no less.  
And from an attack from *within*, a trusted but disloyal member of 
the original kayak crew!  Eileen, a reliable but decidedly nervous 
Fourth Man passenger, is attempting to scuttle Fourth Man 
singlehandedly, and she seems to be hogging all of the GIANTCUSHION 
flotation devices as well.  

Well, what we need here is a theory to bail out Fourth Man.  

***************

Eileen attacked:

> > He said the fourth man is obviously the third Death Eater, dead 
in 
> > Voldemort's service. And the more I thought about this the more 
> > horrifically it made sense. 
> 

Charis Julia howled:


> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! No! No, no, no, no, no! Not Fourth Man, no! I 
like 
> Fourth Man! 


Yes, despite my open hostility to Fourth Man and all of his groveling 
and whining, he is worth saving, I think.  Charis Julia has done all 
of the hard canon work, thank goodness.

Charis Julia:

> Right. DE roll?call:
 
<snip>
 
> II) Dead:
> Evan Rosier, Wilkies, Quirrell.


All right.  I'm thinking this category of "Dead" might be the key to 
saving Fourth Man from the Dastardly Third Man variant:

  "And here we have six missing Death Eaters . . . three dead in my 
service."

Now, I'm not buying Quirrell as a DE.  I mean, Quirrell was probably 
an innocent dupe.  If Quirrell is a DE, then wouldn't Snape know 
this?  Or, at least, Quirrell and/or Voldemort ought to be 
sufficiently worried about this not to try to steal the stone in 
PS/SS.  I think Quirrell is just like Bertha -- strolling through the 
forest and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If so, then I have an open slot for a dead DE.  How exciting!  Who 
would that be?  Crouch Jr., of course.  See, Voldemort isn't stupid.  
Well, maybe he is.  But he's smart enough not to reveal to the DEs 
that Crouch Jr. is alive.  Voldemort tells his DEs in the graveyard 
that there are three dead DEs knowing full well that the number is 
only two.  He's covering for Crouch Jr., which is kind of touching in 
a demented sort of way.

That's when it gets interesting.  If Voldemort has slotted Crouch Jr. 
among the dead, then who is the faithful servant at Hogwarts?  Um.  
Wow.  That's a toughie, isn't it?

It's Snape, of course!  Finally, we have proof positive that Snape is 
not really a spy for Dumbledore, but is a double agent for 
Voldemort.  Boy, Dumbledore is really going to feel silly when he 
finds this out, don't ya think?  I mean, Dumbledore trusted Snape for 
no good reason, and look how it is going to end up.

So then.  Fourth Man is alive and well (although still rather whiny); 
Third Man is DOA; Snape is Ever So Evil; Fudge is Ever So Evil; Moody 
is Ever So Evil; the whole thing is sufficiently Bangy; and all is 
right with the wizarding world.

Cindy 




From bbennett at joymail.com  Thu Apr 25 01:40:26 2002
From: bbennett at joymail.com (bbennett320178)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:40:26 -0000
Subject: Enneagram/Keirsey/HP personalities
In-Reply-To: <aa6vgi+jier@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa7mqa+7ffr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38148

Ooooo, I love this stuff. I'm not really familiar with the Enneagram 
(outside of a short summary I've read), but I'm fascinated by Keirsey 
& Myers-Brigg.

We've discussed character personality on a thread at SQ. At last 
glance, I think opinions were paused at:

Hermione - ENTJ (confident leader, likes to be in charge, decisive, 
likes intellectual exchange, ingenious and resourceful in solving 
complex problems, logical, independent, strives to be the best)

Harry - ISTP (prefers action to conversation, likes adventure and 
challenge, does well in crisis, enjoys hands-on skills, resourceful, 
independent, self-determined, realistic, reserved, detached, curious 
observer)

Ron - ESFP (friendly, gregarious, enthusiastic, good communicator, 
creative, practical common sense, caring, enjoys helping others)

OR

ESFJ (enthusiastic, sociable, engaging, likes to be needed and 
appreciated, personable, trustworthy, loyal, shows love in practical 
ways)

There may have been some discussion on Ron being an N, as well as 
debate over Hermione being an E - but she is quite outwardly-
oriented, which is an E trait (keep in mind that you can be 
realitively quiet E and a rather loud-mouthed I, depending on the 
subject at hand). I personally see her as an E.

 I think it's interesting that Hermione and Harry are both Thinkers, 
especially Hermione (female Thinkers aren't extremely common), and 
that Ron is a Feeler (more Feelers are female). 
Here's the thread:

http://pub40.ezboard.com/fsugarquillfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=990.
topic&start=61&stop=80

Included is my brilliant post on why that many people really don't 
have a Hermione-like personality, even though they may have very 
Hermmione-like behaviors. :D

B, INTP <waves at Heidi for directing her to this thread!>




From editor at texas.net  Thu Apr 25 02:59:47 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:59:47 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] House-Elfs and Slavery Again
References: <20020424154130.37391.qmail@web20404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00c801c1ec05$43301220$407d63d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38149

Ama wrote a very long post, some of which I snipped. Relevant comments were
retained.

> 1) Dobby's voice: Dobby's and Winky's speech patterns
> in GoF are extremely similar to the Black American
> English of the 19th century, if there are any
> linguists on the list.  Really, all we need is a "yes,
> massa" and we're set.  Dobby's quasi-Gullah dialect is
> more notably pronounced in GoF than in CoS.  It's
> interesting that in creating a voice for Dobby JKR
> would use an idiom wich such strong connotations.  Did
> anyone else spot this?

Actually, it reminded me of a creole. It seems entirely likely to me that
house-elves have their own language, and speak a creole when addressing
humans. And the similarity to Black English is understandable--it also has
creole roots. I didn't think JKR was trying to make any kind of point with
their speech, other than to pick a logical format that would make it sound
foreign.

> He doesn't seem to regard rigid enforcement of
> house-elf status as necessary to maintaining stability
> in the wizarding world.  That's a sign, to me, that
> house-elfs really don't need to be so controlled.

I don't get the feeling that the wizards *are* actively controlling them, at
least not usually. The elves themselves, by their attitudes, bind
themselves. And it may be there are magical benefits or contracts involving
their status that we do not know about.

I will propose again that the elves are not so much bound to a family or a
human as to a place, and the bond is extended to the human that owns the
place. Winky may be as much an extreme as Dobby, in her refusal to accept
her dismissal and her attachment to her former *people*, refusing to become
bonded with her new *place.* She is the other end of the spectrum; neither
is representative.

> But, this was precisely the sort of argument used to
> justify African slavery in the first place.

This is irrelevant. Just because the "they're not human" argument was used
to justify slavery, in an instance where it turned out to be untrue, doesn't
mean that it's *not* true in the case of house-elves. They are another
species. There is no reason to assume their psychological needs are the same
as a human's.

  It was
> the prevailing view at the time that blacks were
> descended from the gorilla (their prominent simian
> facial features were cited as evidence of this link)
> and therefore not related to whites (after all,
> Darwin's Origin of the Species isn't published till a
> quarter century after the aboliton of slavery, and
> public acceptance isn't immediate).

Point of logic. If the Origin of the Species and evolutionary theory was not
published until after the abolition of slavery (in America, be specific), it
could hardly have been the prevailing view that blacks were descended from
the gorilla. It would never have occurred to anyone. They were regarded as
an inferior race, but the "descended from" is not an accurate portrayal of
the attitude of the time.

> So someone came up with the perfectly brilliant,
> logical notion that they would make an ideal labour
> force because they had the stamina to withstand a
> harsh tropical climate, once there were overseers to
> supervise them and keep them in line.

No, they were cheap, easily available, and more resistant to European
diseases than the Indians, who kept dying in droves.

Also, don't forget that the white, mostly Christian slave-transporters were
dealing with canny mostly Islamic black slave-dealers in Africa. The latter
presumably knew perfectly well that their merchandise was fully human, and
still chose to deal in it. So you can't generalize slavery's origins to a
belief that blacks were subhuman, even if a large portion of the end market
did believe this.

> So consider the view "they're a different species with
> different needs" has in fact been used as an excuse to
> perpetrate the most abominable kind of abuse.

Granted. But again, the fact that it was wrong in this case does not mean in
any way that for house-elves, this is not an accurate statement.

> I can only deduce that she is potraying the house-elfs
> in such a way as to highlight that treating someone
> that  disrespectfully is morally unacceptable, which
> would bring house-elfs under the umbrella theme of
> prejudice.  Mutual respect is by no means limited to
> human beings.  I treat my dog like a dog, but that
> doesn't mean he has to be subdued or intimidated to
> the point where he expects and even accepts it.  (Same
> goes for being anthropomorphisized.  Dressing him in
> trousers and coat-tails and having him sit at the
> table is equally heinous and disprespectful, IMO, to
> his doggyness.

So how, if the elves really want to keep the status quo, is forcing them
into a situation wherein they are uncomfortable and unhappy, respecting
them? At some point you have to trust the other party to tell you the truth,
and if they like their box, leave them in it. I rather thought JKR is,
probably among other things, showing that diversity is real and not everyone
does want or need the same things.

> So, following points 3 and 4, I submit that all
> species deserve to be treated respectfully, even in
> the Potterverse.

As long as you get to define respect and get to feel good about it, even if
the recipient doesn't like it?

> Why bother to
> introduce Dobby at all if not to point out that nature
> does not dictate character, (giants, werewolves,
> seniors, drunks, Snapes anyone?) that we must be able
> to choose the life we lead?  And without choice, our
> most basic rights are impaired: we lack free will.

But you seem to want to deny the elves the right to choose to remain just
where they are in the relationship they are in. What if they are saying no
more than the truth and they really do prefer the arrangement as it is? At
what point do you insist that you know better than they do what is good for
them? Sometimes you're right; sometimes you're not.

What if you ultimately end up with a batch of elves, whose nature inclines
them to servitude, and brainwash them to believe they like freedom? That is
as morally wrong as the reverse, brainwashing them out of free will to like
their servitude. When do you start letting another being make its own
decisions, and when do you insist on interfering for its own good? I think
it is this very conundrum that JKR is seeking to illustrate, more than
anything else.

> Dobby is our freedom-fighter; he embodies the most
> admirable traits one can develop when subjected to a
> situation that is infra dig.  He chooses not to accept
> his position.

Wrong. He was freed, according to the tenets of the binding (as we
understand them). He went looking for employment, which is again what elves
do, they serve. He is serving now, and would be unhappy if he weren't. He
has departed from the norm only in demanding payment, and he didn't want
very much payment at that. But he did not choose to accept his position at
the Malfoys; he *did* accept it, until Harry schemed his freedom.

Nor is Dobby rabble-rousing in the kitchens. He is leaving his fellow elves
to walk their own paths--respecting their choices, which Hermione does not.
I can't see him cast as a freedom-fighter.

> Winky has been freed, but
> until she can wrap her mind around the concept, she
> may as well be working for Barty Crouch.

Now, Winky, I think, is as aberrant an elf as Dobby. I personally think
elves are bound to a place, and loyalty to a particular human is not
supposed to supercede that. Winky had such a close relationship with Crouch
Jr., for such a long time, with such responsibility specifically for him,
that she cannot accept her freedom---not from her place, but from Crouch and
his son. She is not bemoaning her freedom because it is not slavery--she is
bemoaning her freedom because it separates her from the *people she wants to
serve. She has departed from the house-elf norm so significantly in this,
that she can't allow herself to be bound to a new place and new people.
Winky doesn't want servitude, so much as she wants to be able to care for
"her" people.

> The idea that house-elfs should be dependent by nature
> does not seem to mesh with JKR's publicly voiced
> objectives in writing Harry Potter.

What makes you think they are dependent?

> But I simply don't see where
> JKR, ostensibly a writer of children's literature,
> could be going with the notion that a controlled
> species is acceptable in light of her comments on
> oppression and intolerance.

Ah, but JKR is NOT a writer of children's literature. She is a writer of
literature. That it has been marketed primarily to children is neither her
fault nor her particular preference. Nor do I believe that the complexity of
themes she presents are at all inappropriate for young minds. The earlier
you learn to accept that unfairness exists, and deal in shades of grey, and
function anyway, the better.

--Amanda, very wordy tonight





From lmccabe at sonic.net  Thu Apr 25 06:25:19 2002
From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 06:25:19 -0000
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again
In-Reply-To: <20020424154130.37391.qmail@web20404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <aa87gf+1k60@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38150

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., ladjables <ladjables at y...> wrote:
1) Dobby's voice: Dobby's and Winky's speech patterns
in GoF are extremely similar to the Black American
English of the 19th century, if there are any
linguists on the list.  Really, all we need is a "yes,
massa" and we're set.  Dobby's quasi-Gullah dialect is
more notably pronounced in GoF than in CoS.  It's
interesting that in creating a voice for Dobby JKR
would use an idiom wich such strong connotations.  Did
anyone else spot this?  

Athena:

Ohhhhh yes.  It's very obvious that she was trying to affect a slave 
dialect.  I do have to quibble with you on one point that you made 
and that was when you wrote:

"Darwin's Origin of the Species isn't published till a
quarter century after the aboliton of slavery, and
public acceptance isn't immediate."

Which country are you hailing from when you say this?  Slavery 
wasn't abolished in the US until 1865 and Darwin's masterpiece was 
published in November 1857.  There was a great deal of scientific 
racism during the Victorian era and there was a hierarchy of races.  
The Victorian British were the penultimate while other races such as 
The Irish, Africans and Australian Aborigines were competing to be 
the lowest races.  (At least of course by those in England who did 
the ranking.  I'm sure the French and German scientists would 
quibble about the English being at the top most branch on the tree.)


Back to HP verse, I do believe that JKR will be bringing us back to 
the concept of racial injustice and using the Giants, werewolves, 
house elves, (and maybe vampires?) to show that negative attitudes 
towards entire people are just plain wrong.  Also that you should 
treat everyone with dignity and respect.  Many in the WW simply do 
not do that.  For example, Amos Diggory's questioning of Winky where 
he never once asked her what her name was.  He simply referred to 
her as "Elf."  That's like the Good Old Boys down in the Deep South 
of the US that would refer to any black male as "boy" even if he 
were an octogenarian simply to insult him because of his race and 
therefore attempt to reassert him into an inferior station in life.

She needs to finish this topic and work toward the full emancipation 
of all magic peoples before this series is through.  She can't just 
leave it as Hermione's SPEW buttons in their fourth year which had 
little or no impact on anyone.

Athena





From lmccabe at sonic.net  Thu Apr 25 06:50:10 2002
From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 06:50:10 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's baby form (Was:Voldemort Recruiting Harry)
In-Reply-To: <aa15bb+2drb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa88v2+krrd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38151

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:

> I don't believe it was possible to completely rid the world of 
> Voldemort when he was in his shadow state because there wasn't 
> enough of him for a spell to act upon.  The shadows that flew out 
of the wand were echoes of spells, and they eventually faded; 
Voldemort didn't fade, he simply existed in a less-than-corporeal 
state until he had gained enough strength from possessing other 
creatures (like snakes and small rodents and Quirrell) and drinking 
unicorn blood and snake venom to take on that ugly-baby-form Harry 
saw.

Athena:

Sorry for the delay in responding to this, but I've been sick with 
the flu.  I actually was thinking of this in my feverish state and I 
realized that I have never felt that Voldemort was able to create a 
babyish form by mere magical means and elixirs.  I don't think that 
combination would create flesh enough to hold a wand and torture 
Pettigrew.  Nope.  I think he had Pettigrew abduct a living 
breathing human baby for him to possess.

I don't think Pettigrew used magic to obtain the child because it 
would have shown up in the famous duel with Harry when the wand gave 
up its history.  No, I think that Wormtail did this the old 
fashioned way.  He snatched the child while a parent wasn't 
looking.  It would have been within Wormtail's skill level to simply 
watch a mother at a playground with more than one child.  When the 
mother was distracted by her elder children, then Wormtail would 
sneak up in his rat form to the carriage where the sleeping baby 
was - transform and slowly carry the sleeping child away.  I would 
also assume that it would be *far easier* for him to do this with a 
Muggle child than a magical one.  Any magical parent should attempt 
to put a charm on their children to protect them from those who 
would abuse their child.  (Wouldn't that come in handy folks?)

So I think that Voldy's spirit was possessing a living baby, but 
that due to a steady diet of snake venom and unicorn blood he didn't 
grow like a normal child would.  It would stunt his growth.  
Therefore he still needed to have the magical spell at the end of 
GoF.  This would add to his already jinxed jumble of magical curses 
to his body.  
1)the bone of the father he murdered
2)the flesh of his servant who has a life debt to Harry Potter
3)the blood of Harry Potter who is good and pure of heart
4)the curse of using unicorn blood
5)the body of an innocent Muggle child.

Voldemort is cursed alright.  And should all the magic from him 
vanish, what would be left is Muggle.  Harry wouldn't need to kill 
him then because it would be the soul of the abducted child.

BTW, here's a nasty thing to picture in one's mind:  Pettigrew 
having to change Voldemort's dirty diapers.   EWWWWWWWW.

Athena







From adatole at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 25 08:21:13 2002
From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:21:13 -0000
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again
In-Reply-To: <20020424154130.37391.qmail@web20404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <aa8e9p+pkc0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38152

First off, please let me say "THANK YOU" for bringing up these 
points, especially #1. This has bothered me for some time (especially 
since my children demand the books be read to them. It's the sad 
legacy of a youth mis-spent in theater, I'm afraid.). I agree with 
you wholeheartedly on all points, and would like to add only a couple 
of touches.

I acknowledge Grey_Wolf's assertion that we should hold off on 
wholesale debate until next week, if a Nell-focused debate is indeed 
on its way.

So I'll keep this brief...

ladjables posited
=====================
1) Dobby's voice: Dobby's and Winky's speech patterns
in GoF are extremely similar to the Black American
English of the 19th century, if there are any
linguists on the list.  Really, all we need is a "yes,
massa" and we're set.  
<snip>
If you have the voice recording (I'm not sure who is reading, if 
there is more than one version), it is interesting to note how hard 
he works NOT to sound like Brer Rabbit. I have to wonder JKR would 
have suggested that interpretation or if the publishers said "you 
can't make them sound like that, we'll get sued".

I have to believe it is for a point that the parallel is being drawn. 
Unlike certain other computer-generated characters from  epic science 
fiction movie saga prequels, who were simply offensive for no 
comprehensible reason.

2)Dumbledore's attitude to Dobby and Winky: I've often
considered Dumbledore the moral compass of the series,
<snip>
I have to wonder what Dumbledore's overall goal is with the house elf 
population. It is easy to attribute near-omnicience to the man, but I 
think that would be a mistake. He could have no idea that Hermione 
(or any student) would react so strongly. On the other hand, it might 
be just a matter of time. I am surprised that it is Hermione and not 
a student of African descent (like Lee Jordan) who is at the 
forefront of this debate. 

Perhaps D. was just waiting for events to take thier course, and was 
willing to provide a safe haven for any and all house-elves until 
that moment arrived. Perhaps this has happened before (a student 
becoming incensed) but never got anywhere because, as you point out, 
they aren't ready to accept the freedom they are being offered. It 
will be interesting to see how this plays out because I agree that 
this fits into one of the major themes of the book.

I do not at all buy into the "need to be controlled" controlled 
argument. Despite what is said in Fantastic Beasts in regard to 
Trolls, I think that house elves fall into a completely different 
category. Are they even mentioned in FB at all, vis-a-vis the 
meetings of "intelligent" magical creatures at the beginning of the 
book?

3)House-Elfs are not human:
<snip> 
A false argument in any case. You lay it out the history and facts 
quite well, and I would only add that, in the late 20th century even 
the real-world argument for how to live with other sentient species 
cannot be based on "their not like us".  To be honest, I have 
brothers that probably fall into that same category and while I would 
love to see them penned in and tethered to a stake in the yard, it's 
simply not practical. (grin).

4)Authorial Intent and Canon-Even if our information
on house-elfs is sketchy, we do know JKR finds
prejudice and inequality in general to be
reprehensible; 
<snip>
We have to base our premise, I think, that all characters in the book 
are written for a purpose, and are intended to grow and develop. 
Nobody is static. The events in the book affect them. Harry kills the 
basilisk in CoS, and Hagrid's name is finally cleared, and he gets to 
be a teacher in PoA. Was that the goal? No. Was it a logical 
consequence? Yes.

By the same token the events of CoA with regard to Dobby, which 
affect the events in GoF in regard to Dobby, Winky, and Hermione will 
not stagnate. They are not just a plot device. There must be a 
purpose and a reason.

Now, my one question given the enormous potential power of the house-
elves: Do you think it is possible that they will be recruited in the 
upcoming Dark War (my name, nobody else's) as a power-equivalent to 
the Dementors? And in that fight, perhaps the general population of 
house elves will be forced to face the reality of their own mental 
slavery, and see the way out of it?

Join me for a glass of wine at Madam DeFarge's if you agree. 
	a glass of Frech Tokay Pinot Gris, s'il vous plait.

Ama, who'll be wearing her sabots, H.E.L.F. T-shirt
and beret, and terrifying the patrons in general with
her sudden outbursts on revolution.
	Leon, who feels like a coward for not speaking up until 
someone else broached the subject, but is now donning fatigues and 
riot gear.




From anglinsbees at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 25 09:22:07 2002
From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (anglinsbees)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:22:07 -0000
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again
In-Reply-To: <00c801c1ec05$43301220$407d63d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <aa8hrv+rkr7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38153

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:
> 
> > Winky has been freed, but
> > until she can wrap her mind around the concept, she
> > may as well be working for Barty Crouch.
> 
> Now, Winky, I think, is as aberrant an elf as Dobby. I personally 
think
> elves are bound to a place, and loyalty to a particular human is 
not
> supposed to supercede that. Winky had such a close relationship 
with Crouch
> Jr., for such a long time, with such responsibility specifically 
for him,
> that she cannot accept her freedom---not from her place, but from 
Crouch and
> his son. She is not bemoaning her freedom because it is not 
slavery--she is
> bemoaning her freedom because it separates her from the *people 
she wants to
> serve. She has departed from the house-elf norm so significantly 
in this,
> that she can't allow herself to be bound to a new place and new 
people.
> Winky doesn't want servitude, so much as she wants to be able to 
care for
> "her" people.
> 

I have a very different view of where Winky might go, based on 
traditional mythology and folklore.  In tales of creatures such as 
House Elves and brownies, one of two things happens when they are 
given clotes, neglected, or otherwise trated in an unacceptable 
way.  The first is, they Leave- This is well illustrated  by the 
tale of the elves and the shoemaker.  Dobby, when he was given his 
sock, was free to leave an unbearable situation.

The secont theme I have found in stories is that of the offended elf 
or brownie.  Such a creature, if offered the wrong foods, or 
otherwise offended or wronged, stops being a helpful creature, and 
becomes an imp or gremlin; Souring the milk, preventing the butter 
from coming and the bread from rising, tangling the manes of horses 
and creating other domestic mischief are just some of the examples 
found in folktales.

Now Winky has been <Seriously Offended>.  First she was given 
clothes, then her beloved masters, whom she was all too loyal to, 
were destroyed. First son kils father, and confesses such in front 
of her, then she is witness to the draining of Barty Jr. by a 
Dementor.  Sounds like enough to set anybody over the edge to me!

Maybe we'll see where gremlins (Or perhaps poltergeists) come from 
in the next books....

Ellen
A Pottering Beekeeper

GETTING OFF TOPIC: I'm Playing Mad!Winky over at Naginis_Kiss RPG  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naginis_kiss/ 
So far, she seems to be leaning a bit more towards acting like a 
poltergeist than a gremlin, but I'm working on it....
We are still looking for players, including those for cannon 
characters, so if you're interested, drop by and take a look...




From Ahketsi at aol.com  Thu Apr 25 01:16:02 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:16:02 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape is a mean, ugly shnook.
Message-ID: <48.a7ae833.29f8b2d2@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38154

       LOL! It is so refreshing to hear something so simple and concise 
around here! I really like what you said. Truthfully though, I really hope 
that there is something very exciting (or just really, I dunno, big!) about 
Snape's past. I get the feeling that there is a very interesting explanation 
to why Snape left Lord Voldemort. Possibly it's exactly what you said, but I 
can't help but find the mystery of it terribly intriguing. 
       "Oh, he does (hate you), but he never wanted you *dead*!" I laughed 
when I read this quote! (In the post). He's not a very nice guy, but I kind 
of like him anyway, for some reason. 

-Jacen





From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Thu Apr 25 03:59:14 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:59:14 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: BIG PROBLEM WITH FOURTH MAN! HELP!
Message-ID: <BKDBPCDMOGGFAAAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38155

>Cindy 

>Now, I'm not buying Quirrell as a DE.  I mean, Quirrell was probably 
>an innocent dupe.  If Quirrell is a DE, then wouldn't Snape know 
>this?  

I thought I agreed with this then I checked the book and I'm not so sure -- Quirrell is probably one of the dead DEs.  He says to Harry 
"I met him [Voldemort] when I travelled around the world.  A foolish young man I was then, full of ridiculous ideas about good and evil.  Lord Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. . .Since then, I have served him faithfully. . ." (PS 211)

I could be wrong, but that sounds like he was converted into being a DE.  He doesn't actually mention the dark mark or anything, but serving faithfully sounds like devotion rather than simply being a vessel or something.  He may have been duped to begin with, but he sounds like a serious believer.  The only problem with the idea of Quirrell as a DE is that Voldemort doesn't describe him as such in GoF.  He describes him as a young, foolish, gullable wizard that was easy to bend to his will(567).  I don't know if this qualifies or not -- it seems to depend on perspective.


summary of what Cindy's theory:
Quirrell isn't a DE, Crouch Jr. is listed as dead, leaving Snape to be the faithful servant.

Now, I don't know how seriously this was proposed, but I'm going to have to disagree.  Skipping over the dead DEs for now, we have (1)the "one too cowardly to return" (Karkaroff since he sold out other DEs then fled rather than going back to Voldemort) (2) "One who I believe has left me for ever" If this isn't Snape I don't know who it could be.  It certainly describes him.  (3) "one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already re-entered my service" Crouch Jr.  He's the only one actively working for Voldemort at the time so he qualifies that and of course Voldemort says "It is through his efforts that our young friend arrived tonight" -- since Crouch Jr. arranged for Harry to end up there it pretty much locks this position up for him. (quotes from GoF 565)

As for the three dead, I know we've got Rosier, probably Quirrell, and Number 3 which brings us back to the same old argument.  I personally never thought about this until I read it today, but knowing how JKR tends to foreshadow things, it could be someone mentioned in a future book.  It could also be an error on her part ::shrugs::  Everyone else is pegged it seems though.

---
--Hana





See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Apr 25 11:57:40 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 07:57:40 EDT
Subject: Severus Snape is Ever So Evil (was: Re: BIG PROBLEM WITH FOURTH MAN! HELP!
Message-ID: <55.2640fdbe.29f94934@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38156

Cindy, coming to the rescue of the Fourth Man, quotes,

> Charis Julia:
> 
> > Right. DE roll?call:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > II) Dead:
> > Evan Rosier, Wilkies, Quirrell.

> 
> 
> All right.  I'm thinking this category of "Dead" might be the key to 
> saving Fourth Man from the Dastardly Third Man variant:
> 
>   "And here we have six missing Death Eaters . . . three dead in my 
> service."
> 
> Now, I'm not buying Quirrell as a DE.  I mean, Quirrell was probably 
> an innocent dupe.  If Quirrell is a DE, then wouldn't Snape know 
> this?  Or, at least, Quirrell and/or Voldemort ought to be 
> sufficiently worried about this not to try to steal the stone in 
> PS/SS.  I think Quirrell is just like Bertha -- strolling through the 
> forest and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Eloise:
I don't think Quirrell *can* be a DE, can he?
My understanding of the situation is that he was a professor at Hogwarts who 
took a sabbatical *the year before* PS/SS  and that it was *then* that he met 
Voldemort and became a convert to his doctrine of 'no such thing a s good and 
evil, etc etc', before bringing him back to the UK. In other words, he didn't 
join Voldemort until (?10) years after his defeat.

Cindy:
> If so, then I have an open slot for a dead DE.  How exciting! 

Eloise:
Indeed we do! Intrigue, intrigue!

Cindy:
> would that be?  Crouch Jr., of course.  See, Voldemort isn't stupid.  
> Well, maybe he is.  But he's smart enough not to reveal to the DEs 
> that Crouch Jr. is alive.  Voldemort tells his DEs in the graveyard 
> that there are three dead DEs knowing full well that the number is 
> only two.  He's covering for Crouch Jr., which is kind of touching in 
> a demented sort of way.

Eloise:
That works for me.

Cindy:
> That's when it gets interesting.  If Voldemort has slotted Crouch Jr. 
> among the dead, then who is the faithful servant at Hogwarts?  Um.  
> Wow.  That's a toughie, isn't it?
> 
Eloise:
Well, only if we assume he's not into creative accounting. OTOH, no, Cindy, 
you *do* have a point. Everyone knows their place in the circle, don't they, 
so they know how many DEs/spaces there should be. Uh oh!

Cindy:
> It's Snape, of course!  Finally, we have proof positive that Snape is 
> not really a spy for Dumbledore, but is a double agent for 
> Voldemort.  Boy, Dumbledore is really going to feel silly when he 
> finds this out, don't ya think?  I mean, Dumbledore trusted Snape for 
> no good reason, and look how it is going to end up.

Eloise:
Now this I have to think about. I did propose it myself, or something very 
like it, once in a fit of complete paranoia. What are the possibilities?

1. Cindy is right.
Is it really possible that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is a sham? Well, 
he's apparently a spy. He must be able  to dissemble. Did he (as I asked once 
before) therefore recruit Pettigrew? Has he been preserving Harry to use his 
blood in that restorative potion when the time was right? Was he *really* 
trying to get the Stone for Voldemort himself? Reluctant as I am seriously to 
believe it, Snape is ambivalent enough a character that JKR could get around 
to pulling off that particular *volt face*, I think. Perhaps the lady doth 
protest too much (Hermione, that is) and it *is* all misdirection. He does 
refer to Voldemort as the Dark Lord, presumably a hangover form his DE days. 
An indication of loyalty, or something he wouldn't risk saying if he really 
were still loyal to Voldemort? Or simply an acknowledgement, from one who 
really knows, of the power of the enemy?

2. Voldemort *believes* that Snape is his Faithful Servant, but is actually 
wrong.
This could have some merit, I think. I think it was Tabouli who pointed out 
that it was the perfect cover for (loyal to Dumbledore) Snape to pretend to 
Voldemort that he was a double agent, to the point where he was outed 
publically as an ex-DE.

3. Voldemort is actully referring to Crouch/Moody. Well this is evidently 
what we're *supposed* to believe, at least by the denoument. It's what Crouch 
Jr himself believes (although this again could be misdirection). I am 
inclined to think, though, that the fact that Voldemort talks about how his 
Faithful Servant will rejoin him, at a that point we know is in between his 
torturing of Bertha for information and his arrival with Pettigrew at the 
Crouch home indicates that they are one and the same.

If Crouch/Moody is *not* the Faithful Servant, how does he fit into the 
scenario? His presence at Hogwarts is orchestrated by Voldemort, he is the 
one who transfigures the cup into a port-key and ensures that Harry reaches 
it. He is the one who has suffered Azkaban and imprisonment under the 
Imperius. We can't just say that he's a loose canon, working off his own 
initiative. He certainly wasn't working *with* Snape, as the evidence of the 
pyjama party shows.
 
Snape, apparently, has got away with his DE past, lived (recently, at least) 
a comfortable life and done nothing active towards bringing Voldemort back, 
at least until Voldemort's arrival at Hogwarts, if we are to accept an 
Evil!Snape interpretation. Not the sort of thing the Dark Lord appreciates. 

Cindy:
> So then.  Fourth Man is alive and well (although still rather whiny); 
> Third Man is DOA; Snape is Ever So Evil; Fudge is Ever So Evil; Moody 
> is Ever So Evil; the whole thing is sufficiently Bangy; and all is 
> right with the wizarding world.
> 
Eloise:
Well.....A nasty moment there. I don't think I can agree that Snape *is* the 
Faithful servant <sigh of relief>, but I do think Cindy is right in pointing 
out that we have an unidentified, dead DE. Any takers?

Eloise

Awarding Cindy a medal (three bars) for special services to The Order of the 
Flying Hedgehog. (What about Bagman, my dear. Has he been reprieved?)
And wondering just who will be accused of being Ever So Evil next? 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Apr 25 13:24:02 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:24:02 -0000
Subject: BIG PROBLEM WITH FOURTH MAN! HELP!
In-Reply-To: <aa7gni+f94i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa901i+ttv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38157

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:
>
>   "And here we have six missing Death Eaters . . . three dead in 
my 
> service."
> 
> Now, I'm not buying Quirrell as a DE.  I mean, Quirrell was 
probably  an innocent dupe.  If Quirrell is a DE, then wouldn't 
Snape know  this?  Or, at least, Quirrell and/or Voldemort ought 
to be  sufficiently worried about this not to try to steal the stone in 
> PS/SS.  I think Quirrell is just like Bertha -- strolling through the 
> forest and in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> 

Quirrell can't have been a DE, that is, someone who once stood 
in that circle, which Voldemort says has not met in thirteen years. 
Voldemort says he did not meet Quirrell until four years before 
his reincarnation. Additionally, Hagrid says in PS/SS that Quirrell 
had no first-hand experience with the Dark Arts until he took a 
year off to go around the world. That would hardly be true of any 
wizard, regardless of allegiance, who had been active while 
Voldemort was in power.

Pippin




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Thu Apr 25 14:35:47 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:35:47 -0000
Subject: I Have A SHIP To Sing, Oh! (filk)
Message-ID: <aa9483+7ufe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38158

I Have A Ship To Sing, Oh! 

To the tune of I Have a Song to Sing, Oh! from Gilbert & Sullivan's 
The Yeoman of the Guard

Hear a MIDI of the original at:

http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/yeomen/web_opera/yeomen_07.html

Dedicated to all SHIPPERS

THE SCENE: Gryffindor Common Area. Several Gryffindor residents 
gather to pay musical homage to the various ships.

LEE THOMAS
I have a ship to sing, oh!

ALL
Sing us your ship, oh!

LEE
It is sung of a lass 
Who's atop her class
Who's showed she's smart as a whip, oh,!
It's the song of a Gryffindor, growing great
Whose hair was frizzed and whose teeth were straight
Who sought forsooth but met no mate
As she sighed for the love of a laddie.

ALL
Heighdy! heighdy!
Misery me--lack-a-day-dee!
She drove off Drac and craved no Krum
As she sighed for the love of a laddie.

PARVATI
I have a ship to sing, oh!

ALL
Sing us your ship, oh!

PARVATI
It is sung on webrings
Where they filksongs sing
To tunes that are not quite hip, oh!
It's the song of a Parselmouth, perfect pluck,
Who stops Dark Lords, and who, with some luck,
Was sorted with the Gryffindor, growing great,
Whose hair was frizzed and whose teeth were straight
Who sought forsooth but met no mate
As she sighed for the love of a laddie.

ALL
Heighdy! heighdy!
Misery me--lack-a-day-dee!
She drove off Drac and craved no Krum
As she sighed for the love of a laddie.

SEAMUS FINNEGAN
I have a ship to sing, oh!

ALL
Sing us your ship, oh!

SEAMUS
It is sung to the air
Of a girl red-haired
And her brothers gave her lip, oh!
It's the song of an innocent, shy and sweet
Who let a dwarf with valentines greet
The keen youthful Parselmouth, perfect pluck,
Who stops Dark Lords, and who, with some luck,
Contended with the basilisk, born of hate 
Whose eyes were death and whose fangs were straight
He bit the book and tamed that Tom
Once she wrote in the book of a Riddle

ALL
Heighdy! heighdy!
Misery mill --lack-a-diddle!
He bit the book and tamed that Tom
Once she wrote in the book of a Riddle

LAVENDER BROWN
I have a ship to sing, oh!

ALL
Sing me your ship, oh!

LAVENDER
It is sung by a gnome 
Who is heading back home 
As through the fence he slips, oh!
It's a song of the youngest bro, clan renowned,
But the duds he donned were hand-me-downs
Sorted with the Gryffindor lass by the Hat
Where they bickered brash like cat and rat
His pal was the Parselmouth bold as brass
But the grades they're granted meant they barely passed.
When the Ball began he at last gained chance
To ask the Gryffindor lass to dance
But lost his luck and stalled his stance
When he vied for the view of a Veela

ALL
Heighdy! heighdy!
Misery me--lack-a-deela!
She's voting Vic and courting Krum
`Cause he vied for the view of a Veela

Heighdy! heighdy!
Misery ming--lack-a-day-ding!
They're still just teens, so it's not foreseen
All the trips that their ships will be taking!  

  - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 





From jillyharris at triton.net  Thu Apr 25 13:40:25 2002
From: jillyharris at triton.net (Jilly Harris)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:40:25 -0400
Subject: Charlie and Bill Weasley
Message-ID: <3CC80748.352A6E04@triton.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38159

Hey all--

I haven't had the chance to check out the archive, so this may have
already been brought up, but I was interested in knowing if anyone has
speculated on just how old Bill and Charlie Weasley are? I keep trying
to figure out just how old, since Ginny can remember when Bill was in
school, but he could have been in 2nd or 3rd year when she was born, and
that would have made her around 4 or 5 when he graduated.

What do the rest of you think?

Jilly





From jillyharris at triton.net  Thu Apr 25 00:40:15 2002
From: jillyharris at triton.net (Jilly Harris)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:40:15 -0400
Subject: The kids' good-looks or lack there of (was Draco in Potions)
References: <aa6mtg+su7i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CC7506F.19822C0B@triton.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38160



blpurdom wrote:

>  I like the picture of a young David Spade as Malfoy; that actually
> seems about right.  Many of us who write fanfic in which Draco is
> better-looking than Spade (raises hand guiltily) recognize that in
> the future HP books Malfoy will probably NOT be even close to drop-
> dead gorgeous, as he sometimes is in fanfic.  I wasn't aware of
> anyone suggesting that there's canon evidence of Draco Malfoy being
> a future sex god or anything.  I certainly don't see that in the
> books.  Just because he was able to get a date for the Yule Ball and
> Crabbe and Goyle didn't isn't saying much (espcially when you recall
> that his date, Pansy Parkinson, doesn't get a very complimentary
> description of her looks from JKR).

The interesting fact though is that in fanfiction ALL the characters,
even Crabbe and Goyle as well as Pansy whos ome favor, turn into
beautiful and handsome people. When the plain fact is JKR doesn't really
write ANY of the charactesr in a favorable light in terms of their
looks. Harry's scrawny, Hermione has bushy hair and big teeth, and Ron
has a too big nose and is too tall.

Now (and I know this may stir up trouble but what the hay just for
arguements sake) the 4 lead kids in the movie all are adorable. Tom,
Daniel and Rupert have the potential one day to be heartbreakers. I am
not one to goggle at kids, I just happen to see it. I also see that Emma
is going to be a very lovely young woman when she gets older. And though
I think they were the best choices for the kids, the really don't
resemble the description JKR gives us. They are too pretty/cute.

BUT that is just my $0.02 on that.

Jilly





From rthomp681 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 25 15:32:31 2002
From: rthomp681 at yahoo.com (thomp_27)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:32:31 -0000
Subject: Charlie and Bill Weasley: ages
In-Reply-To: <3CC80748.352A6E04@triton.net>
Message-ID: <aa97if+2aq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38161

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jilly Harris <jillyharris at t...> wrote:
> Hey all--
> 
> I haven't had the chance to check out the archive, so this may have
> already been brought up, but I was interested in knowing if anyone 
has
> speculated on just how old Bill and Charlie Weasley are? 


When Bill visits Hogwarts at the end of GoF, he says that he hasn't 
seen the place for five years.  Which, assuming he was 17 or 18 when 
he graduated, would make him 22-23.  I would guess that Charlie 
graduated the year after, since he's not at Hogwarts when Ron and 
Harry arrive.  

Ruth 

***Elf Note: While their ages are not a matter of canon fact yet, a great deal of evidence about their ages can be found in the Lexicon (www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/). Essentially, when all the references are weighed together, the best estimate is that Charlie is at least 25 and Bill is at least 27. (This post was also edited for format). Thank you.***






From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 25 16:59:37 2002
From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:59:37 -0000
Subject: Snape is a mean, ugly shnook.
In-Reply-To: <48.a7ae833.29f8b2d2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aa9clp+831q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38162

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ahketsi at a... wrote:
>I really like what you said. Truthfully though, I really hope 
> that there is something very exciting (or just really, I dunno, 
big!) about 
> Snape's past.

> He's not a very nice guy, but I kind 
> of like him anyway, for some reason. 
> 
> -Jacen

I am sure there is something big in the past.  There had to be 
something major to make Dumbledore trust him.  It wasn't just ratting 
on Volde, otherwise Dumbledore would have told Harry since Harry 
already knew that bit.  My theory is the secret task Snape has to 
perform has something to do with that previous trust-winning task, 
NOT going back as a turncoat.

No, he isn't a nice guy, but I find him extremely fascinating.  He is 
no card-board cut-out bad guy. 

Marcus





From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Thu Apr 25 17:12:43 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:12:43 -0000
Subject: Dead DE's (Was: Severus Snape is Ever So Evil)
In-Reply-To: <55.2640fdbe.29f94934@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aa9deb+2mrh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38163

Howdy, folks!

Eloise challenged:
> Well.....A nasty moment there. I don't think I can agree that Snape
*is* the
> Faithful servant <sigh of relief>, but I do think Cindy is right in
pointing
> out that we have an unidentified, dead DE. Any takers?

We have Mulciber and Rookwood, who were alive when they were mentioned
in the Pensieve sequence, but who could have died in Azkaban since.
Particularly since Ludo refers to Rookwood as a friend of his
father's, and we learn that he's a senior person in the Ministry, he
can't have been a young man when he went to prison.

And it could be someone we've never heard about. James's evil twin
Skippy*, perhaps?

Gwen

*No, I don't really think he'll have an evil twin named Skippy or
anything else. I just wanted to avoid a one-liner.




From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Apr 25 18:40:44 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:40:44 EDT
Subject: Voldemort and wandless magic
Message-ID: <176.7498d80.29f9a7ac@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38165

Something rather odd, or at least I thought it odd, struck me the other day 
when listening to the end of PS/SS (again!).

When Harry and Quirrell confront each other, Quirrell binds Harry magically, 
apparently without recourse to a wand.
We know that Dumbledore can perform wandless magic.
But Voldemort, *Voldemort*, the most powerful dark wizard of modern times, 
apparently needs a wand. Why? 

Is it simply because his magical powers also dissipated when he lost his 
body? Was he able to perform wandless magic before his downfall?  Can he 
*still* not perform wandless magic, now that he has his body back, or was he 
too confused and shocked by the Priori Incantatem effect to remember that he 
had an alternative to using a malfunctioning wand? 

I suppose it could be another case of Voldemort amnesia, in this case the 
'Wandless magic.... I forgot' variation. :-)

Any thoughts?

Eloise



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Apr 25 19:17:40 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:17:40 -0000
Subject: Voldemort and wandless magic
In-Reply-To: <176.7498d80.29f9a7ac@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aa9kok+4dbh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38166

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> Something rather odd, or at least I thought it odd, struck me the
other day 
> when listening to the end of PS/SS (again!).
> 
> When Harry and Quirrell confront each other, Quirrell binds Harry
magically, 
> apparently without recourse to a wand.
> We know that Dumbledore can perform wandless magic.
> But Voldemort, *Voldemort*, the most powerful dark wizard of modern
times, 
> apparently needs a wand. Why? 

I think that wandless magic (useful and controlled wandless magic, I
mean, not the chaos random stuff Harry has done by accident) may be a
matter of not just power, but also mental focus and self-control --
qualities Voldemort is a bit low on.  This does raise the question of
how Quirrel could do it, but I tend to lean toward the theory that
Quirrel was actually a talented wizard and DADA instructor before
Voldemort got to him.  (I like this theory partly because it makes
Quirrel's fate more poigniant and tragic, and partly because it
improves Dumbledore's record at hiring DADA teachers.)

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From ev_vy at SoftHome.net  Thu Apr 25 19:27:17 2002
From: ev_vy at SoftHome.net (Ev vy)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:27:17 +0200
Subject: Voldemort and wandless magic + Weasleys' ages
References: <176.7498d80.29f9a7ac@aol.com>
Message-ID: <009c01c1ec8f$383d3b60$f309f1d5@OSLII>

No: HPFGUIDX 38167

From: Eloise <Edblanning at aol.com>

: When Harry and Quirrell confront each other, Quirrell binds Harry
magically,
: apparently without recourse to a wand.
: We know that Dumbledore can perform wandless magic.
: But Voldemort, *Voldemort*, the most powerful dark wizard of modern
times,
: apparently needs a wand. Why?


We also see Quirrell and Snape perform wandless magic at the Quidditch
match. I don't have SS/PS at hand, but from what I remember (or I may
be influenced by the movie) Quirrell is just staring at Harry and
Snape's also muttering. So it's probable that the curse does not need
the incantation uttered, and the countercurse does. Or it relies on
the powerfulness of the wizard, or maybe there is a way practise
wandless  magic learnt after basic magical education, or some wizards
may be more talented for this kind of magic.


: Is it simply because his magical powers also dissipated when he lost
his
: body? Was he able to perform wandless magic before his downfall?
Can he
: *still* not perform wandless magic, now that he has his body back,
or was he
: too confused and shocked by the Priori Incantatem effect to remember
that he
: had an alternative to using a malfunctioning wand?


I suppose that only some kinds of spells or curses allow to be
performed wandlessly. Or they're too time consuming when used without
a wand. Or when Voldemort was caught by the effect of Priori
Incantatem, he was too concentrated on it and on sending the energy
through the wand to be able to use other kind of magic, which seems
energy-consuming or requires concentration which Voldemort couldn't
spare at the moment.


So as to Weasleys' ages. It was discussed before and as I remember
there was a kind of agreement reached that Bill is about 30 in GoF. In
SS/PS, there is mentioned that Gryffindor did not win the Quidditch
Cup since Charlie left, which was six years earlier (arrgh, I need my
book back). Assuming that Charlie was 17/18 when leaving Hogwarts,
he's 23/24 when Ron begins Hogwarts. So he's 27/28 in GoF, and Bill is
older than Charlie so he should be about 30 in GoF.

Ev vy




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Apr 25 19:38:13 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:38:13 -0000
Subject: Quirrell Is Ever So Evil (WAS BIG PROBLEM WITH FOURTH MAN! HELP!)
In-Reply-To: <BKDBPCDMOGGFAAAA@mailcity.com>
Message-ID: <aa9lv5+s7c9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38168

Hana wrote (about whether Quirrell was a DE):

> I thought I agreed with this then I checked the book and I'm not so 
>sure -- Quirrell is probably one of the dead DEs.  He says to Harry 
> "I met him [Voldemort] when I travelled around the world.  A 
>foolish young man I was then, full of ridiculous ideas about good 
>and evil.  Lord Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. . .Since then, 
>I have served him faithfully. . ." (PS 211)
> 
> I could be wrong, but that sounds like he was converted into being 
>a DE.  

Good heavens!  What's this?  Canon?  Someone is citing actual 
*canon*?  Uh oh.

<pulls PS/SS out from under bed, flips pages frantically>

Gee.  It says exactly what Hana says it says.  Does this mean that 
Voldemort is referring to Quirrell as the Third Dead DE?

Well, it could be.  But I think Quirrell is exaggerating there a bit 
in PS/SS.  You know, maybe a bit of puffing to highlight his own role 
in Voldemort's organization.  Or, at the very least, Voldemort has a 
very different view of who is and who is not a loyal DE. 

In GoF, Voldemort gets all chatty in the graveyard, and he indicates 
he is a bit annoyed that his DEs cut and ran when the Plot To Kill 
The Potters backfired:

"I settled in a faraway place, in a forest, and I waited . . . . 
Surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me . . . 
one of them would come and perform the magic I could not, to restore 
me to a body . . . but I waited in vain."

Now, it seems to me that if Quirrell really were a DE when Voldemort 
fell, Voldemort wouldn't have suggested that all of his DEs hung him 
out to dry.  

Then, Voldemort reminisces about Quirrell's happy midnight stroll 
through the Albanian forest:  "A wizard -- young, foolish, and 
gullible -- wandered across my path in the forest I had made my 
home."  Voldemort mentions that Quirrell "was easy to bend to my 
will."  And what is Voldemort's preferred method of bending wizards 
to his will?  I mean, besides the Cruciatus Curse.  That's right, the 
Imperius Curse!

So that gives us Imperius Quirrell, not Ever-So-Evil DE Quirrell.  I 
think I'm sticking with the idea that Quirrell wasn't a proper DE, or 
as a fall-back position, that Voldemort doesn't consider Quirrell a 
proper DE.  Voldemort just considers Quirrell and his turban a warm 
and cozy place -- a grotesque sort of marsupium.

Hana wrote:

>Skipping over the dead DEs for now, we have (1)the "one too cowardly 
>to return" (Karkaroff since he sold out other DEs then fled rather 
>than going back to Voldemort) (2) "One who I believe has left me for 
>ever" If this isn't Snape I don't know who it could be.  It 
>certainly describes him.  (3) "one, who remains my most faithful 
>servant, and who has already re-entered my service" Crouch Jr.  

Ah, yes.  But we have to guard our flanks against the possibility 
that there are other evil DEs -- DEs who are still out there and who 
could fit one or more of the three categories.  Secret Evil DEs are 
everywhere, you know.  The place is *thick* with them!  Their 
potential evilness makes Voldemort's graveyard speech much more 
difficult to sort out.

One too cowardly to return could be Karkaroff, Snape, Bagman (yes, I 
think Bagman is an Ever So Evil DE, but don't get me started), or 
Fudge (yes, I think Fudge is Ever So Evil, but don't get Dicentra 
started).

One who has left forever could be Bagman, Karkaroff, Snape, or maybe 
Fudge (but probably not Fudge, because Fudge is Evil To The Core And 
Not About To Change).

One who remains my most faithful servant could be Crouch Jr. or 
Snape.  And if you think Voldemort doesn't wish to blow Crouch Jr.'s 
cover of having died in Azkaban, then maybe, just maybe, Voldemort is 
doing a bit of misdirection in the graveyard . . . well, then that 
leaves Ever So Evil Snape.

Hana again:
 
> As for the three dead, I know we've got Rosier, probably Quirrell, 
>and Number 3 which brings us back to the same old argument.  I 
>personally never thought about this until I read it today, but 
>knowing how JKR tends to foreshadow things, it could be someone 
>mentioned in a future book.  It could also be an error on her 
>part ::shrugs::  

JKR make an error?  I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean there.  ;-)

Well, Rosier and Wilkes are both definitely dead DEs.  Now, I don't 
think I want to say that Rookwood is dead, because in Ever So Evil 
Moody, Rookwood is the reason Moody is so jumpy. I need Rookwood 
alive and peeved at Alastor Moody.

But then again, why does Voldemort fail to mention Mulciber and 
Rookwood?  Could they be dead?  Or . . . or . . . could they be 
*innocent*?  Well, could they?

Cindy (nominating Hana for the Order of the Flying Hedgehog for her 
excellent work on Ever-So-Evil Quirrell)

[Messages 34,622, 35,657 and 36,829]




From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Apr 25 19:15:21 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:15:21 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #4--Will HP b...
Message-ID: <86.19b3f20b.29f9afc9@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38169

In a message dated 23/04/02 15:23:08 GMT Daylight Time, jweaver at s-tec.com 
writes:

Jayseeweezer:
> > 
> > Nigel Newton, the chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing, has 
> > predicted the HP books "will still be bought for children in 100 
> > years' time."  (Prynn).  Is he merely promoting his company's 
> > interests?  Will the Potter novels be classics?   
> > 
> I think the discussion of whether or not the Potter novels are/will 
> be classics is a little premature?we've only seen four of the
> seven 
> and it appears that after two years JKR has hit something of a
> wall?
> until the series is resolved I think it's a little early for
> judgment!

I respectfully disagree. Sure, we don't know about the whole series, yet, but 
if we didn't know that seven books were projected, would we feel unable to 
comment on the worth of what we have? And if they never materialised, would 
the four we have be consigned to oblivion? Schubert's 'Unfinished' Symphony 
is still a classic despite its truncated nature, isn't it? (Apologies that 
due to delayed posting, Pippin has already made the same point.)

I for one think that they are books that will last. The themes of magic, of 
the tension between good and evil, of the young hero finding himself are 
enduring ones which will not date. Her views of good and evil (which don't 
seem fully to be revealed yet) are perhaps more complex than some of her 
predecessors, at least in the genre of children's literature, so I would not 
describe her as totally derivitive in using these themes.

In addition, the books are successful at different levels, which is why they 
are not *just* children's books. They appeal on an intellectual level 
(witness this list's very existence); we could say this is their adult 
appeal. They appeal to the child and allow us adults to indulge the inner 
child in their pure fantasy adventure. And, dare I say, they appeal to the 
inner adolescent - all that crush material which keeps this list so busy! 

JKR's prose style itself has come in for some criticism from some (myself 
included). I don't think it's great *writing*. But it *is* great 
story-telling. Although the style may not be of the highest order, it does 
have the benefit of being easy to read, which is not a bad quality in books 
designed to appeal to children. And the stories are anchored in and 
interlinked with the elements from so many other tales, references which 
enrich, without being didactic or irritating.

Along with story lines which carry the reader forward, she has developed 
characters who interest and intrigue us, whose motivations puzzle us and 
leave us asking questions, wanting to know more. The strength of her 
characters is often just there: not in the way they have been developed, but 
in what has not yet been developed, what is left unsaid, in these very 
unanswered questions. Many of her characters, adults in particular, are 
enigmatic. They are mysteries in themselves which beg explanation. Witness 
this list again! Hands up everyone who joined the fandom because they were 
intrigued by the history/motivation of one or another of the characters. :-)

So.....Strong plots, great characters, appeal to different age groups. Yes, 
these books will last.

Eloise. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From grega126 at aol.com  Thu Apr 25 19:30:28 2002
From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:30:28 -0000
Subject: Voldemort Recruiting Harry
In-Reply-To: <aa15bb+2drb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa9lgk+ns5u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38170

Barb said:
> 
> The way I see the sequence of events is this: Trelawney predicts 
> Voldemort's fall and attributes it to Harry (or possibly to a 
> Potter, which might be why James was killed and why Voldemort 
wasn't 
> necessarily there to kill Lily, a Potter-by-marriage).  Voldemort 
> assumes it would naturally not be possible until Harry is older 
and 
> so he goes to Godric's Hollow to nip the problem in the bud.  He 
> kills James easily and figures the next step is to kill Harry and 
> his night's work is done.  But Lily gets in the way and Harry is 
> protected by her sacrifice, causing the curse to rebound upon 
> Voldemort.  
> 
> Also, in trying to kill a baby with no inherently special powers 
> except the usual magical ability of your average wizard, Voldemort 
> ironically transfers some of his own powers to Harry (Parseltongue 
> is the only one we know of, but I suspect there's more) making him 
a 
> more formidable opponent once he has further magical education and 
> learns to draw on these powers.  (Perhaps this is the reason he's 
> able to conjure a Patronus as a thirteen-year-old and why he can 
> almost immediately overcome the Imperius Curse as a fourteen-year-
> old.)  

While I do agree with most of that, I have to say I disagree with 
the: "baby with no inherently special powers" line.  In order to 
believe this, we have to believe that Lily Potter was the first 
person in the history of the Killing Curse who was willing to 
sacrifice themself for someone they loved.  Are we really to believe 
that no mother before had ever dived in front of the curse for their 
son?  Or a Husband for his wife?  How about a woman jumping in front 
of the curse to save her one true love from an ex-lover?

While I do agree that his mother's sacrifice was a necessary portion 
of his survival and without it he almost assuredly would've died, I 
just can't believe that it was the only reason.  I think it was 
something inherently "special" about Harry, combined with his 
mother's sacrifice that added up to him being the first and only 
person to ever survive the Killing Curse.  And I think whatever it 
is that's "special" about Harry is related to both PRofessor 
Trelawney's prediction, as well as why Voldemort showed no interest 
in killing Harry's mother.

"Greg"




From cmf_usc at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 25 19:55:24 2002
From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:55:24 -0000
Subject: Severus Snape is Ever So Evil (was: Re: BIG PROBLEM WITH FOURTH MAN! HELP!
In-Reply-To: <55.2640fdbe.29f94934@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aa9mvd+q8l6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38171

Eloise, exploring the possibilities that Snape might be Ever So Evil, 
wrote:

1. Cindy is right.
Is it really possible that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is a sham? 
Well, 
he's apparently a spy. He must be able to dissemble. Did he (as I 
asked once 
before) therefore recruit Pettigrew? Has he been preserving Harry to 
use his 
blood in that restorative potion when the time was right? <snip>

2. Voldemort *believes* that Snape is his Faithful Servant, but is 
actually 
wrong. <snip>

3. Voldemort is actually referring to Crouch/Moody. <snip>


Now me:
I would like to add a #4 (actually, this is my husband's theory, 
which he completely, 100%, believes in):

4.  Snape is Ever So Evil but NOT a faithful DE

According to this theory, Snape has Evil Overlord ambitions of his 
own.  He is keeping Harry alive because he knows Harry's Big Bangy 
Secret (whatever that may be), the secret that means that Harry has 
the best chance of anyone to defeat Voldemort.  

Snape's hatred of Harry doesn't have anything to do with LOLLIPOPS 
(too soft for a guy like Snape, in my husband's opinion.)  Nope, 
Snape resents Harry because he has to keep him alive.  Because for 
whatever reason, Harry can do what Snape himself can't (defeat 
Voldemort).

Then, of course, there will then be a scene in book #7, after Harry 
defeats V, in which Snape turns and thanks Harry for ridding the 
world of Voldemort
 now no-one stands in the way! (followed by evil 
laughter, general shock, and Ron?if still alive?making I-told-you-so 
comments)

My husband came up with this before finishing GOF.  When he was done, 
I asked: don't you think that's too similar to Crouch/Moody helping 
Harry, then showing his true colors?  Surely JKR won't do that 
again?  He answered that the GOF plot twist made this conclusion even 
more likely; sort of a double bluff.

What do ya'll think?  Any takers?  Or can you point me to some canon 
that rules this out?

Caroline





From sgrunow at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 25 19:50:10 2002
From: sgrunow at hotmail.com (sgrunow1)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:50:10 -0000
Subject: Draco in Potions
In-Reply-To: <aa7b3v+1koj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa9mli+4ebk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38172

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> Is Draco bright? Certainly by comparison to Crabbe and Goyle, but 
> considering he's the poster-boy of a House whose chief quality 
> is 'ambition', where does he he spend his energy?
> 


I think that Draco is probably an average student, grades wise, but 
one with a lot of underdeveloped talent.  Remember that in CoS, at 
the dueling club, he conjures a snake out of thin air.  Now I know 
that Snape was probably telling him the incantation when he was 
whispering in Draco's ear just before this, but we also know from 
books 1, 3, and 4 that just knowing an incantation is not enough 
perform that piece of magic (wingardium leviosa, expecto patronus, 
and accio).  I think that Draco's marks being below his father's 
expectations result from an attitude like that displayed in Care of 
Magical Creatures when he doesn't listen to Hagrid's instructions and 
is then injured by Buckbeak (PoA).  He could do well, but he doesn't 
want to put forth the effort required to do so.

--sgrunowl

(Elf note: edited to snip excess quoted material and add signature)




From heidit at netbox.com  Thu Apr 25 20:21:37 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:21:37 -0000
Subject: Draco and broomsticks and lines
In-Reply-To: <aa1oc0+1u5a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa9ogh+u5fv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38173

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> Is Draco bright? Certainly by comparison to Crabbe and Goyle, but 
> considering he's the poster-boy of a House whose chief quality 
> is 'ambition', where does he he spend his energy?
> 
> In books 1 and 2, despite the MASSIVE amounts of time HRH spend in 
> the library researching both the Sorceror's Stone and Heir of 
> Slytherin, we never see Malfoy doing any sort of homework. His main 
> focus of energy in ChoS seems to be buying his way onto the 
Quidditch 
> team, but doesn't work at it that much once he's on it.

I still don't understand where people get this idea. In PoA, he's 
probably playing well enough to catch the snitch ahead of both Cedric 
<b>and</b> Cho - yes, it's possible that a team can lose if the 
opposing seeker catches the snitch when they're more than 50 points 
behind, but if that was the case, Hermione or Ron would've mentioned 
it, loudly so as to humiliate Draco, in GoF when Viktor did just 
that. So I think it's likely that Slytherin went into their PoA match 
with Gryffindor undefeated <b>because</b> Draco caught the Snitch in 
teh matches against Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. Does that mean he's an 
excellent player? Not necesarily, but it also means that there's no 
canon evidence for the claim that he "doesn't work at it that much 
once he's on it..."

> 
> In PofA, Malfoy puts more energy into faking his injury than 
getting 
> good marks 
Again, I don't know where there's any canon evidence for this. We 
don't know what his marks were like, other than to know that in first 
year, they weren't as good as Hermione's. We only see him in two 
classes - and it feels like COMC is a pass/fail class, at least as it 
regards the Flobberworm Exam. 

> Hermione's high marks are by no means a given conclusion. Whenever 
we 
> see her, she is reading and doing EXTRA work. Caould you picture 
> Draco doing extra work for ANYTHING? His ambition seems to be to 
> buully his way through on his father's name, not through any effort 
> of his own (but than hard work is the Ravenclaw ideal, isn't it.)

But he also seems to have an ambition to please Lucius or at least 
defend family honor - hence his fight with Harry in GoF and the 
embarrassment he expresses in the shop in CoS. If the way to please 
Lucius was by getting good marks, he probably would work to do it. 
Also, in the first flying scene in Book 1, the Harry-perspective pegs 
Draco as able to fly well (with a note that he wasn't lying in that 
brag) - flying seems to be instinctive for Harry, but on this, Harry 
is unusual, as Professor McGonnagal says to Oliver Wood in that same 
book. It's implied that unless you're Harry, flying and controlling a 
broom are things that you have to learn to be good at. Even if 
Draco's been flying for years, it's something that he's become good 
at - good enough so that in PoA, had Harry not been on the Firebolt, 
Draco probably would've caught the Snitch.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
<good example snipped>

> That is crossing the line, in my opinion. That is evil. 

I guess it depends on which definition of "evil" you're using. It 
sounds like you're using the "morally reprehensible" definition, 
whereas I am using the "causing harm" definition (and actually, the 
causing physical harm subdefinition at that). I agree that such a 
statement is morally reprehensible (in that disaproval thereof should 
be voiced). I just don't see Draco's statements in either CoS or GoF 
as "causing harm" to anyone, at least not physically. And my 
*personal* definition of *evil* is one where physical harm is 
involved. Advocating that someone who can *actually do physical harm* 
to another person *should do so* does count, but so far, we haven't 
seen him do even that. 

> 
> Now, it puzzles me that Draco redemptionists don't really want him 
to 
> have anything to be redeemed from. 


I think he's been nasty, mean, destructive, prejudiced and 
occasionally violent. He's played dirty and been malicious and 
spiteful.

I also think, in degrees, that Ron's been mean and destructive and 
certainly prejudiced ("Get away from me, werewolf!"; house elves like 
work; giants are "not very nice".) . Hermione's engaged in at least 
one act of violence - slapping Draco. Harry's played dirty in 
Quidditch to some degree and been destructive (admittedly when 
provoked) at the Dursleys'. And let's not even talk about Snape. 

And I do think that if he doesn't get a good sharp shock, he's going 
to meander behind Lucius in perpetuity and never think for himself or 
do anything that's a result of his own conclusions, rather than his 
father's. And that's what I mean when I say that his characterisation 
is set up for a redemption - because it's a fascinating way to show 
how important thinking for yourself and making a choice, even if that 
choice goes against what you've been raised to do, as long as that 
choice is to do the right thing. 

heidi




From Zarleycat at aol.com  Thu Apr 25 20:32:07 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:32:07 -0000
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound (WAS: Snape's Secret Snogging)
In-Reply-To: <aa7f5l+ko2j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa9p48+8gfp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38174

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> Charis Julia hypothesized:
> 
> > This proposal has the advantage of:
> >  
> > 
> > 3) explaining Snape and Sirius's pre--PoA mutual abhorrence and 
> > providing the Prank with an believable backstory instead of the 
> > flimsy "slimy, oily, greasy?haired tell?tale that tried to get us 
> > expelled" story that Sirius seems to be stubbornly sticking to 
> > despite it's rather unflattering insinuations for his character.
> 
> Oh, my.  Charis is indeed onto something here.  Arabella Figg.  My, 
> my.  This changes *everything*!

No, it doesn't. Call me a stubborn, old crank, but we've already had 
a number of people who have been disguised as other people.  I'm 
going to be just a tad miffed if we find out that Arabella has been 
using Polyjuice Potion or some other magical concoction, to look like 
her own mother, or some other elderly wizard. 

 
> So who would make the perfect match for dear Arabella?  Well, it 
> certainly isn't Snape.  Vindictive, unattractive, mean-spirited, 
> changing over to the Dark side and then back again.  No, that 
> relationship has no potential, I'd say.

Agreed.

> Ah, but Sirius and Arabella?  That is downright unassailable.  
Aside 
> from the character traits they share (the loyalty to Dumbledore and 
> Harry, the protective nature), there's reason to believe that 
Sirius 
> is *deeply* in love with Arabella.  Remember how Sirius escaped 
from 
> Azkaban?  He somehow knew exactly the neighborhood where he could 
> find Harry.  Sirius also inexplicably knows that Harry has been 
> living with his aunt and uncle.  How could Sirius, locked in 
Azkaban 
> for 12 years, know these details?  

Because he was in school with Lily and James for years.  He probably 
heard Lily whining, complaining, bemoaning the fact that her sister 
Petunia was jealous of her and her magic abilities.  So, he knows of 
Petunia's existence.  He saw her at James and Lily's wedding.  For 
all we know, Petunia could have been maid of honor and poor Sirius 
had to deal with her anti-magic attitudes at the wedding, as well as 
the presence of the disagreeable Vernon.  Sirius was James best 
friend and James is an only child, so of course Harry would not be 
living with any Potters. (Yes, I know, we don't know that from canon, 
but if other people can fly into orbit with weird hypotheses, so can 
I!!) We know that Sirius is a smart cookie - he probably knew that 
Harry would be likely to be living with Lily's sister.


> 
> Pillow talk, my friends.  Sirius escaped Azkaban and went straight 
to 
> his old flame Arabella, and she told him where to find Harry and 
> filled him in on the doings in Harry's life.  Arabella, bless her, 
> never believed Sirius was guilty.  She knew him too well. 


If he didn't know where Harry was after twelve years, why would 
Sirius know where Arabella was, especially if we assume that Arabella 
is planted in Harry's neighborhood to provide him with additional 
protection?

 
> Finally, we know that Sirius was sent to notify the old crowd of 
> Voldemort's return, including Arabella.  That raises the question 
of 
> how Dumbledore can be so sure Arabella won't turn Sirius in to MoM 
on 
> sight?  The answer, I think, is that Arabella and Sirius go way 
back, 
> so to speak.


Or Dumbledore simply realizes that he can send a brief note to his 
devoted "old crowd" saying that he is sending them a most unlikely 
messenger who will give them all the details of what they need to 
know, but, trust him, this messenger is innocent of all that the 
wizard world believes is true.

I think that we will see a scene with Sirius and Harry early in Book 
5.  Why?  Because we know that Sirius will visit Arabella, she lives 
near Harry, and Sirius tells Harry towards the end of Gof "You'll see 
me very soon, Harry...I promise you."  So, perhaps we'll get a 
clearer picture of just who Arabella is...

> Let's see.  So Sirius was a match with Arabella, Snape was with 
> Trelawney, Peter was with Florence, and Remus . . . Rita Skeeter, 
of 
> course.
>
> Cindy (daring someone to find a canon SHIP for Lupin)

Although I'm sure the above pairings were presented tongue-in-
cheek...Remus and Rita???  Ugh!  He's far too intelligent.  And Snape 
and Sybil?  He wouldn't have the patience to deal with someone so 
completely self-absorbed in her own mystique.   No, no... the only 
one for Remus is...well, fans of The One True Way know who that 
person is!!

Marianne




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Apr 25 20:52:53 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:52:53 -0000
Subject: Severus Snape is Ever So Evil (was: Re: BIG PROBLEM WITH FOURTH MAN! HELP!
In-Reply-To: <aa9mvd+q8l6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa9qb5+du1u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38175

Ooooh! The non-Snape fan in me is trembling all over at the idea that 
dear Severus might be not only be Ever-So-Evil, but also might harbor 
ambitions of being Supremely Evil And Ruling The World.  That is Ever 
So Bangy!  I especially like this idea because JKR doesn't seem to 
have a great deal of affection for Snape, so she might well sacrifice 
him if she could spring another good surprise ending on all of her 
fans.  

Well, all of them except Caroline, Eloise and myself.  We'll be ready 
for her, won't we?

***************

Eloise wrote:

> 1. Cindy is right.

Well, I certainly like this part of the theory.  ;-)

Eloise:

> Is it really possible that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is a sham? 

Caroline and her Clever-But-Nameless Husband added:

> Snape is Ever So Evil but NOT a faithful DE  <snip  
> According to this theory, Snape has Evil Overlord ambitions of his 
> own.  He is keeping Harry alive because he knows Harry's Big Bangy 
> Secret (whatever that may be), the secret that means that Harry has 
> the best chance of anyone to defeat Voldemort.  

Oh, it very well might be.  There are just a whole lot of question 
marks surrounding Snape.  For instance:

1.  There are many instances in which Snape is overly protective of 
Harry.  Not wishing Harry to go to Hogsmeade.  Being angry when 
Harry's name came out of the Goblet.  Saving Harry from falling off 
of his broom.  JKR wants us to believe that these are the actions of 
a benevolent father figure.  They might instead be the actions of a 
cunning Evil-Overlord-In-Waiting.

2.  Snape seems intent on rubbing out the wizards who could stand in 
the way when the day finally comes that Harry defeats Voldemort and 
Snape defeats Harry.  Snape tried to get Sirius killed, colluding 
with Evil Fudge to do so.  Snape also inexplicably tried to get Lupin 
killed.  Had Snape succeeded, there would have been two fewer wizards 
standing between Snape and Harry.  When Snape couldn't get Lupin's 
soul sucked out, he settled for at least making sure that Lupin 
wasn't around Hogwarts to get in the way.  I say Arabella Figg had 
better watch her back around Snape.

3.  Snape let the dementor suck out Crouch Jr.'s soul and, depending 
on how you read the text, Snape let the dementor into the castle 
against Dumbledore's express orders.  Why?  Snape can't let Crouch 
Jr. finger Snape as Ever-So-Evil, can he?

4. Snape apparated to the graveyard at the end of GoF.  This is why 
Snape tenses when Harry is naming names.

5.  Snape was somehow able to return to Voldemort at the end of GoF, 
yet show up at the leaving feast without so much as a slimy hair out 
of place.  Why?  Voldemort knows Snape is really an Evil Double Agent 
who has tricked gullible Albus Dumbledore into believing Snape is 
Dumbledore's spy.

6.  Snape is Neville's worst fear ? this is because Neville learned 
something important about Snape connected to the torture of the 
Longbottoms.

7.  Snape asks us to believe that he had no idea Pettigrew was a DE, 
even though Snape was supposed to be spying.  I say Snape knew 
exactly what Pettigrew was up to.  Snape also knew full well that 
Pettigrew was alive in the Shrieking Shack.  That's why Snape wasn't 
willing to listen to Black and Lupin ? why listen when there are two 
wizards who need to be relieved of their souls ASAP?

8.  Snape arrived at Hogwarts knowing more Dark curses than half the 
seventh year students.  That's because Snape does his homework.  If 
Snape is preparing himself to rule the world, he wants to do the job 
right.

In fact, what proof is there that Snape is really, really working for 
the forces of good?  All of the evidence could go either way -- just 
like Severus Snape himself.

Caroline:

> What do ya'll think?  Any takers?  Or can you point me to some 
>canon that rules this out?

Oh, sure, maybe I can join with you there.  We need an acronym -- a 
really long, impossible-to-remember acronym.  

I might even have to make a play for Ever So Evil Moody as well.  
That gives us a wicked, Bangy scene in Book 7 in which Evil Moody is 
about to finish Harry, and Snape saves Harry (just like in GoF).  
Moody and Snape have a confrontation (just like GoF), where we learn 
they both are Evil Overlords-In-Waiting.  As everone knows, the world 
is only big enough for one Evil Overlord.  Snape finishes off Moody 
and prepares to kill Harry himself.  And then . . . then . . . 

Well, you don't want me to spoil the surprise, do you?  ;-)

Cindy




From Ahketsi at aol.com  Thu Apr 25 20:21:37 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:21:37 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House-Elfs and Slavery Again
Message-ID: <f3.1a159ff8.29f9bf51@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38176

"She needs to finish this topic and work toward the full emancipation 
of all magic peoples before this series is through.  She can't just 
leave it as Hermione's SPEW buttons in their fourth year which had 
little or no impact on anyone."   -Athena (btw, that name rocks).

It seems to me that in the upcoming years Hermione will have more to worry 
about than Elf's rights, or so you would think. I'm sure that the issue is 
far from closed. You'll notice that Hermione herself, of course, has been 
looked down upon herself for being of muggle descent. I expect book #5 to be 
amazing. This is like the Balkan powder keg, everything is just ready to 
explode. (Yeah, yeah, I just got finished studying WW1). 

I mean, we've got Voldemort (who is probably "greater and more terrible than 
ever he was" -JKR) and his death eaters, giants (who knows who they'll side 
with)  dementors guarding prisoners who are about to be on the side of the 
prisoners, a screwed up Minister of Magic, and of course, there's Harry and 
friends. I'm sure we're going to get into a ton of discrimination of good and 
dark wizards alike against muggles, elf's, giants, werewolf's, and whatever 
else. 
                           -Jacen





From philnel at ksu.edu  Thu Apr 25 21:27:25 2002
From: philnel at ksu.edu (Philip Nel)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:27:25 -0500
Subject: Will HP become classic?
References: <1019757524.7793.51452.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3CC874BD.84F81B9B@ksu.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 38177

Dear Bernadette

(and anyone else who happens to be interested in this question, of course),

Thanks for your kind words about the discussion questions.

You ask:

> Would it be inappropriate to ask what the name of the collection
> will be or who is putting it out?  As a Communications Student
> with a love for literary commentary, I'd love to see what
> Academia is saying about the HP books.

With apologies for being self-promotional, the editor of the collection is Lana Whited, and the publisher is the University of Missouri Press.  I *think* the title will be _The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter_.  It was going to be _Harry Potter and the Ivory Tower_, but one group of Rowling's lawyers nixed that (if I remember correctly, the group was her agent's lawyers) on the grounds that a collection of essays with this title might dupe fans into thinking they were buying an actual _Harry Potter_ novel & not a collection of essays by a bunch of academics.  But the editor and publisher should tell you enough.  My essay is on the U.K.-U.S. translations.

There's an essay on _Potter_ in the latest issue of the _Children's Literature Association Quarterly_.  If I had the issue in front of me, I could provide more specifics, but my issue is at home.  You may be able to find this in a library.  Here are links to more literary criticism: <http://www.ksu.edu/english/nelp/rowling/#lit_crit>.  Two of these will only be available to you if your college or university subscribes to ProjectMuse.  If not, _The Lion and the Unicorn_ is a print journal, too, & so can be found in libraries.  And:

Nicholas Tucker, "The Rise and Rise of Harry Potter" in _Children's Literature in Education_ 30.4 (Dec. 1999): 221-334.  Tucker's a bit ambivalent about Potter, but has interesting comments on Rowling's influences.
Jack Zipes, _The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter_ (2001) -- there's a chapter on _Potter_.  Zipes doesn't like Potter.

To be honest, a lot of the lit crit isn't that great.  My favorites are probably A. O. Scott and Polly Shulman's epistolary discussion of the first three _Potter_ novels, conducted at _Slate_ in 2000 <http://slate.msn.com/?device=&displaymode=&workarea=&id=2000111&entry=1003466>; and Joan Acocella's "Under the spell," _New Yorker_, 31 July 2000, 74-78.  Neither of these are "lit crit," incidentally.

> <<<One often sees papers and even entire panels on _Potter_ at
> conferences.  The "Harry Potter" panel at last year's MLA (Modern
> Language Association) conference -- the *big* annual conference
> for English and Language profs. in North America -- was packed.
> There were people sitting on the floor.  I'd guess that a room
> that holds one hundred was hosting about 150 people for that
> session.>>>
>
> Would it be possible for you to do a separate report about the
> panel and the things that were discussed there?  I'm sure I'm not
> the only Potter fan on this group who would find it very
> interesting.

Well, one of the essays at the MLA session -- "Harry Potter and the Spectres of Thatcherism" -- will be published in the edited collection I mentioned above.  I don't know if the other authors' papers have found journals or collections in which they'll be published, but I imagine that they will.  This is the program for this year's Children's Literature Association Conference: <http://www.wyomingseminary.org/chla/program.html>.  There are several _Potter_ papers and panels.  Here is the program for the 2001 Modern Critical Approaches to Children's Literature Conference: <http://www.middleenglish.org/mcacl/mcachlit01prog.htm>.  Its first panel was on _Potter_.  The titles may at least provide a glimpse of what academics (or, anyway, some academics) are thinking about.

Best,

Phil
--
Philip Nel
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Denison Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-0701
U.S.A.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.ksu.edu/english/nelp/
philnel at ksu.edu




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 25 21:57:17 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:57:17 -0000
Subject: Voldemort and wandless magic
In-Reply-To: <aa9kok+4dbh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa9u3t+o0b6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38178

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> > When Harry and Quirrell confront each other, Quirrell binds Harry
> > magically, apparently without recourse to a wand.
> > We know that Dumbledore can perform wandless magic.
> > But Voldemort, *Voldemort*, the most powerful dark wizard of 
> > modern times, apparently needs a wand. Why? 
> 
> I think that wandless magic (useful and controlled wandless magic, I
> mean, not the chaos random stuff Harry has done by accident) may be 
> a matter of not just power, but also mental focus and self-control 
> -- qualities Voldemort is a bit low on.  This does raise the 
> question of how Quirrel could do it, but I tend to lean toward the 
> theory that Quirrel was actually a talented wizard and DADA 
> instructor before Voldemort got to him.   

I got the impression when reading the first book that Quirrell was 
being possessed by Voldemort and was therefore channeling Voldemort's 
power, such as it was.  Since he still had his own power, this would 
mean his magic would be very potent indeed.  (After all, Quirrell 
couldn't touch Harry without feeling pain, although it was Voldemort 
who had tried to curse Harry in 1981.)  It's not that Voldemort needs 
a wand to do magic, per se--the point is he needs a BODY, which he 
doesn't have yet.  That's why it's so important for him to get his 
body back.  

Other people use wandless magic, most notably Dumbledore (although 
even old Tom lights fires with a snap of his fingers at the Leaky 
Cauldron and Remus Lupin conjures instant illumination on the 
Hogwarts Express).  I believe the body is the first way in which 
magical humans express their magic, and wands just help focus it even 
more.  Ghosts, for instance, don't seem to retain the ability to do 
magic even when they were witches and wizards in life.  The Fat Friar 
was supposed to have been a Hufflepuff when he was in school and he 
is no longer able to do magic after death; ditto the ghost of Myrtle.

I think Quirrell could probably have conjured the ropes whether or 
not he was being controlled by Voldemort, but my point is that I 
think he did it BECAUSE he was being controlled by Voldemort, and it 
was Voldemort's will and power that accomplished this.

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Thu Apr 25 21:33:23 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:33:23 -0000
Subject: Acronym Petition: Severus Snape is Ever So Evil
In-Reply-To: <aa9qb5+du1u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aa9sn3+37j9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38179

Cindy wrote:
> Oh, sure, maybe I can join with you there.  We need an acronym -- a 
> really long, impossible-to-remember acronym.  
>
> Cindy

Hooooowl! The grey shadow, once more on the run, has heard words in the 
wind. The news travel fast, and when someone needs an acronym, TAGWATCH 
must fulfil it's mission. Once again, the Grey Wolf leaves the safe 
marshes of the North and periciously travels South to the lands of the 
sun where his help is needed. Tirelessly running over the frozen land 
on his heart's choice, he quickly arrives to the sun-blasted plains 
where the Cindysphynx lives. The great creature tries to stop his 
mission, by asking a cunning riddle, but a wolf plays not the games of 
man. Thus, the magnificient creature delivers his message and returns 
to the lands were cold rules.

Which means:
How about G.O.L.D. S.I.E.V.E. (Great Overlord Lies Dormant: Snape is 
Evil, *Very* Evil)? I know it's not too long, but it's got everything 
you need, and it's easy to remeber (since you DO want to sieve gold 
form pebble, don't you?)

I must say, however, that I don't think Snape will turn bad, it would 
be too good to be true - I'd love him to, so Harry would have the moral 
right, nay obligation, to kill him and, since I hate Snape more than I 
hate Voldy (but not nearly as much as I hate the Dursleys), his death 
would be the cherry on top of the seventh book.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who is starting to discover the intoxicant attraction of 
falling to bad prose to introduce acronym posts.





From Ahketsi at aol.com  Thu Apr 25 22:55:01 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:55:01 EDT
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again
Message-ID: <f3.1a1c6783.29f9e345@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38180

"So how, if the elves really want to keep the status quo, is forcing them
into a situation wherein they are uncomfortable and unhappy, respecting
them? At some point you have to trust the other party to tell you the truth,
and if they like their box, leave them in it. I rather thought JKR is,
probably among other things, showing that diversity is real and not everyone
does want or need the same things."  -Amanda/editor at texas.net

I agree and disagree with this. I am openminded to the possibility that house 
elves are actually best suited where they are at, but I do think it very 
likely that the elves are, in Hermione's words, "uneducated and brainwashed" 
(-JKR). I can't know this, but I find it a strong possibility.

House Elves may by nature enjoy work, but this does not take away from the 
fact that most of them cannot quit their work if they ever desired to 
(Dobby...). They not only enjoy working, but also have no other option. 
Perhaps this situation has disillusioned them. Probably many people with 
house elf's are perfectly nice, and have the same opinions as Ron, 
influencing the house elf's opinions. 

One more point I need to mention is tradition. Supposing house elf's enjoy 
work, and even servitude, by nature. House elves seem to think of their 
positions, serving their masters, as honorable and not liking their master, 
or wanting to be freed, is shameful. This way of thinking might have come 
about with the help of wizards who encouraged it, to their obvious benefits. 
It seems reasonable that elves could enjoy servitude by nature, but not 
necessarily the way of thinking that doing anything else is shameful. To me, 
this seems to be a sign that house elves are really not in healthy positions. 


They may be a different species, but they are sentient, and thus deserving of 
the same rights as any other sentient creatures, true? For muggles yes, but 
in the magical world, perhaps not. Magic seems to overcome some things, but 
other things seem to be set in stone in both the magic world and the muggle 
world (without mentioning anything specific). 

Now, supposing we're all agreed that house elves should be free (I know we 
are not of course, we really can't determine that). I would like to refer to 
Amanda's comment, "and if they like the box, leave them in it." I think that 
Hermione will be unsuccessful in convincing house elf's they deserve freedom. 
I think that they will have to discover this on their own (still supposing 
that is best). Perhaps something very big will make the hose elf's doubt 
their set-in-stone beliefs. 

Comments please!
-Jacey






From catsluvme2002 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 25 23:19:30 2002
From: catsluvme2002 at yahoo.com (catsluvme2002)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:19:30 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's baby form (Was:Voldemort Recruiting Harry)
In-Reply-To: <aa88v2+krrd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaa2u2+ao9c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38181

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "linda_mccabe" <lmccabe at s...> wrote:
> 2)the flesh of his servant who has a life debt to Harry Potter

I thought of something when I read this:if Voldemort used the flesh 
of a servent who has a life debt to Harry then would'nt he owe 
something to Harry too?And that raises another question in my 
mind:What happens if you ignore a life debt like Voldemort would if 
he does have a life debt to Harry through Peter?Would you be cursed?


~Newbie(please don't hurt me ;^) )






From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com  Fri Apr 26 00:44:45 2002
From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (L. Terrell Gould, III)
Date: 25 Apr 2002 17:44:45 -0700
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound (WAS: Snape's Secret Snogging)
Message-ID: <20020426004445.13104.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38182

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020425/73e27a3b/attachment.ksh>

From oppen at cnsinternet.com  Fri Apr 26 01:31:30 2002
From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:31:30 -0500
Subject: What is _right_ vs. what is _easy..._
Message-ID: <006e01c1ecc2$18b1ca80$bdae1cce@hppav>

No: HPFGUIDX 38183

I just had a rather horrid thought.  Again and again we hear that the choice
is between doing what is _easy_ and doing what is _right._  In the next book
or two, we might see Harry himself fall to this hurdle, possibly like so:

One fine day, the Aurors come to Hogwarts, with orders to arrest Draco
Malfoy, Gregory Goyle and Vincent Crabbe.  A captured DE has grassed on
Lucius Malfoy and Crabbe and Goyle Sr, and implicated the daylights out of
their sons just for good measure...either figuring that the more people he
throws to the MoM the easier they'll go on him,or out of malice and envy of
Malfoy Sr. for his wealth and old family name or...who knows.

In any case, Harry happens to _know_ that the Unholy Trinity (has anybody
else noticed that the Trio of Potter, Weasley and Granger is balanced by an
Anti-Trio of Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle?) are completely innocent of the
charges brought against them---but nobody else knows this for sure, enough
to testify and get them released. Nobody knows, in addition, that Harry has
this knowledge---everybody thinks he's just a bystander, a spear-carrier at
best in this scene.    Harry is now faced with a huge temptation.

If he testifies, and the Anti-Trio are acquitted, he's going to have to
continue to put up with them, and from what he knows of them, their
gratitude is going to have the life expectancy of a mayfly hatching.  On the
other hand, if he just keeps quiet and doesn't insist on testifying---or
goes on the stand and lies like a rug---he'll get to see them dragged away
to Azkaban and at worst and least, he'll be _rid_ of them at long last.

Now, I _had_ a "Malfoy" figure in my own life, and in this position, I would
have been dreadfully tempted to Do Nothing...my rationalization would have
been that he had it coming _anyway_ and that getting punished for something
he actually hadn't done was merely sweet, sweet irony, considering all the
times he hadn't been punished for something he _did_ do.

I would bet that Harry would share his dilemma with his two best friends,
and I can just about imagine their responses.  Hermione, of course, would
urge him to stand up and testify, while Ron would, at least, be very sorely
tempted to urge him to say nothing and hoist a glass of Butterbeer down at
the Three Broomsticks on the day that Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle get sentenced
to life without parole in Azkaban.  If Harry _didn't_ testify, it would put
a very severe strain on Hermione's friendship---she'd probably be horrified
that he'd allow _anybody,_ even Those Three, to be hauled off to Azkaban,
knowing that they were honestly innocent this time.

For a really, really nasty twist on the above, consider this:  Harry
_doesn't_ even tell the other members of the Trio, and stays still and
schtum.  Without his testimony, Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle are convicted (by
the usual wonderfully fair Wizard World justice system---"guilty as charged
on the above counts, and also guilty of being the sons of Death Eaters!
Life without parole in Azkaban is too good for you!  Hanging's too good for
you!  Burning's too good for you!  You---should be TORN---into ITSY BITSY
PIECES---and BURIED ALIVE!  _KILL!"_)...and, later that same year, new
evidence comes to light that shows that they _were_ convicted quite
unjustly, and couldn't have been guilty at all---_and that Harry Potter knew
about it all the time and kept quiet!_   So, when he's finally thinking he's
_rid_ of the Anti-Trio, they're back, looking like they've been dragged
through Hell by the soft and dangly parts---and _he's_ the villain!  This
would make his life _interesting,_ as in the Chinese curse.  People seeing
these shaking, white-faced, cringing wrecks and shaking their heads in pity
and sorrow, and then giving _him_ dirty looks---dirty looks that he _knows_
he deserves.

*Brrrr*  Sometimes I scare myself!






From tabouli at unite.com.au  Fri Apr 26 03:40:17 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:40:17 +1000
Subject: Emotional Snape, Mrs Figg's cabbage aroma, genie Voldemort
Message-ID: <003d01c1ecd4$2a23dda0$a525ddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 38184

Naama:
> Let's see if you can explain away, at one go, his treatment of Harry, Neville AND Hermione (not to mention his overall nastiness to practically 
everybody around him). <

Porphyria:
> Snape's scarred and angry personality is one of the reasons that I find 
it hard to believe that he actually is fond of Draco and that his 
evident kindness to him is not due to some tactical reason to keep 
Lucius happy, for example. I think the only genuine, undisguised, 
undiluted, unguarded emotion that Snape expresses in public is fury; 
everything else strikes me as a little suspicious.<

Mmmmyes, though in my experience that's not uncommon among men.  In fact, I believe the stiff upper lip which no emotion but anger can pass (except, perhaps, at sporting events) is considered a highly desirable state among the English, particularly the upper class English.  Showing weakness in public?  How common!  Notice, for example, that the boys in the Potterverse go to great lengths to avoid the shame of public tears, even Harry at the end of GoF, where you'd think he could cut himself a break and have a good bawl.

All the same, I'm not sure how well Snape fits the standard stiff upper lip bill.  The ideal of lofty, unruffled, understated disdain is hardly what Snape achieves.  Much as we get the impression he'd like to be cool, eloquent and forbidding (witness that poetic opening speech in PS/SS), he's a bubbling pit of emotions, battering against his stiff upper lip like tsunami, bursting out in the form of spite and menace and, occasionally (e.g. the end of PoA) shrieks of rage.  It could be that he wasn't raised to the stiff upper lip, and has tried to reconstruct it himself; it could be that the torment he has endured in his life is far in excess of the usual upper class woe, and the Lip just isn't enough to contain it.  Or both.

As for Snape's bullying ways, in my experience the most vicious bullies are those who have been bullied themselves.  Yes, the victim turned bully syndrome.  It lends support to my theory that Snape was badly mistreated by his carers as a child (witness all those curses he'd learned by *11*... who did he plan to use them on?).  Horrible business, being bullied and abused by people you're dependent on.  Not much to his credit if he has, indeed, subconsciously repeated the pattern by bullying his students as an adult.  But not impossible.  Not at all.

Then there's also the hint that Sirius may have been involved with bullying, or at least taunting Snape in high school.  Not that I see Sirius as a victim turned bully, far from it, different style altogether.  Sirius is more the cocky popular kid exercising his social dominance by picking on losers.


Nuri
>-I'm 27, from Argentina, just joined today!-

Welcome, welcome.  I'm sure the worthy listmembers will soon come forward with friendly offers of badges and shipping berths...


L. Terrell Gould:
> <<"Mrs. Figg's house smells of cabbage. Cabbage? Well, of course, 
this could just be to stress how old she is<

The most interesting cabbage theory I've heard is the one which revolves on Polyjuice Potion smelling like cabbage, implying that the old cat-loving lady is in fact swigging regularly to disguise her true identity, like all the best A.F.R.I.C.A.N. H.I.P.P.I.E.S.  (Arabella Figg, Redolent In Cabbage, Actually Needs Hourly Ingested Polyjuice Potion Invoking Elderly Shrew).

Barb:
> Um, is Voldemort a genie now? 

(Tabouli is snickering in unseemly fashion).  I like this idea.  In fact, it inspires a new, and, er, R rated acronym... V.I.A.G.R.A. (Voldemort Is A Genie Running Amok, no relation to FIAGRA, which is about Flitwick).  Adds a whole new dimension to "Lord Voldemort had risen again"...

Marina:
> Sprout and Lupin have both demonstrated that Neville can do good work
in a safe and supportive environment.  But Snape, no doubt, would be
thoroughly disgusted by the notion that a person might need the right
environment in order to do well.  "Competent people can work in ANY
situation, dammit!  None of this spoiling and coddling!  If you can't
work under a bit of pressure, you DESERVE to fail!"
>
>The proper response to this, of course, is to stick Snape in a bright
pink room full of teddy bears and frolicking bunnies, pipe in an
endless stream of "Hello, Kitty" songs, and see how well he works
*then*.  <EG>

Whistling innocently, Captain Tabouli glances around for Captain Charis of the Pink Barge ELGINMARBLES...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Fri Apr 26 03:28:35 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:28:35 -0700
Subject: Voldemort and wandless magic
Message-ID: <MCKBIAEIFFDKAAAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38185

Marina said:

>> I think that wandless magic (useful and controlled wandless magic, I mean, not the chaos random stuff Harry has done by accident) may be a matter of not just power, but also mental focus and self-control<< 

Barb said: 

>>I believe the body is the first way in which magical humans express their magic, and wands just help focus it even more.<<

IMO magic in general can be done without a wand but it's a lot harder to control (eg. the random stuff Harry does) I think that the difference between wandless magic and using a wand is like writing with sidewalk chalk vs. a mechanical pencil.  Sure you can write with the sidewalk chalk, but if you want to do anything that is detailed or complicated you want the mechanical pencil.  

Conjuring ropes, or a light source might be considered easy forms of magic which could be done with the chalk so to speak, while the Unforgivable Curses, or magic that might be used in a duel needs more focus and therefore the equivilent of the pencil.  

A wand, I believe works like that -- it allows the caster greater precision and focus.  Voldemort could have tried wandless magic against Harry in the duel in GoF but perhaps he would have been unable to do the more sophisticated spells that would be needed to win.  It could also be that he was just startled by the reaction between the two wands and couldn't focus at the time on anything ~but~ the wand.

Another thought on this issue -- some spells need specific wand movements.  Are these movements simply a way of focusing the spell or are they an intergral part of it?  If they're necessary then a wand (or at least something like a finger) would be essential to the spell.

I don't think that anyone's mentioned it yet, but the nature of different wands needs to be taken into consideration when discussing wandless magic.  Wands are made of different substances and some are better at certain things (Harry's mother's wand was good for charms while his father's was good for transfiguration PS 33), and since the wand chooses the user it must somehow compliment or extend the power of the weilder otherwise it wouldn't matter what you used as a wand.  So, while it may be possible to operate without a wand at times, it's simply more efficient and practical, not to mention safer and accurate to use one.

Hmm I think I'll stop now.

---
--Hana




See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From fluxed at earthlink.net  Fri Apr 26 04:15:03 2002
From: fluxed at earthlink.net (A. Vulgarweed)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:15:03 -0500
Subject: Father Figures and Bad Choices
In-Reply-To: <1019333093.894.79245.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <l03130304b8e7d38c2d8a@[63.215.117.158]>

No: HPFGUIDX 38186

>   From: "Hana" <gohana_chan02 at lycos.com>

>>One explanation for his protectiveness of Harry is his "life debt" to
>>James.  Is that all?  I have no idea because we have little background on
>>Snape.  We do know that Snape is a former Death Eater who knows how
>>Voldemort treats people and knows what Harry has to expect from fighting
>>him.  The way he treats Harry could be a harsh way to force him to mature
>>so that he'll survive any encounters with the Dark Lord.  If everyone
>>coddles Harry and treats him like the "wonderful boy who lived" then
>>would he really be prepared for the harshness of dealing with Voldemort?
>>Isn't that part of Dumbledore's reasoning for leaving Harry with the
>>Dursleys?  He didn't want Harry to grow up being treated like he was
>>special (though I don't know if he expected the level of abuse that Harry
>>grew up with, but then again, the abuse made him a stronger person who is
>>less likely to go for the "power-hungry, bully" type people and more for
>>the "defender-of-the-weak" type ones).
>
>The same goes for getting expelled to some extent.  If Harry gets
>expelled, he won't be a threat to Voldemort due to lack of magic and he
>may not become a target (especially if he vanishes into the Muggle world).
>Now, I admit that this second line of reasoning is flawed, and is a lot
>less likely since Voldemort might want to hunt Harry down simply for
>revenge, but it is still a possibility.

The discussion of father-figures in Harry's life is great! I agree with the
idea that all these very different wizards play different aspects of the
father-figure--of which the hated authoritarian is very much a significant
part. But you'll note that, except for Arthur Weasley, none of them
actually *are* fathers (that we know of), anybody's father. So they're free
to be more one-dimensional in relation to the children in their charges
than an actual father, who had to do it all, would be. I frankly don't see
Sirius getting disciplinary on Harry. Protective, yes, when he sees genuine
danger, but discouraging what he sees as harmless hijinks?....nah. (And we
know he's not always the best judge of that!). And by the time he clears
his name and is able to act freely as a father figure, Harry will be old
enough that he won't be in such need of a "father" and might see him as
more like an older peer; after all, he was already in puberty when he *met*
the guy; it's not like Sirius raised him. Dumbledore _could_ assert his
authority, but also mostly chooses not to. Lupin tries weakly once or
twice, but he's a bit of a pushover. Snape IS pretty much the only one who
lays down the law (and I think he has BOTH protection and dominance as his
goals when he does it), and he often does it badly enough that I can
understand why he doesn't get the respect he so clumsily demands. I don't
think Vernon Dursley's on the radar at all; I agree with the poster who
said awhile back that Harry's written him off completely, I doubt that he
means anything more to Harry than that jerk who sends him the tissue for
Christmas and makes his summers miserable.

So who does this leave, setting the limits of what Harry can achieve? Who
establishes the boundaries of the world in which he operates, beyond which
he truly cannot go? I think that would be Voldemort.

As for the expulsion thing, I take that with a pound of salt. I'm pretty
sure Snape knows that expelling Harry would be a death sentence (for
possibly the only person who will be able to defeat Voldie when he's fully
trained, so before then possibly a death sentence for him is one for the
entire wizard world as well) and that Dumbledore would never ever ever do
it (yet another reason for Snape to think that he's a coddled golden boy).
It's simply the most horrible and plausible thing he can use to threaten
Harry with; (the sooner Harry figures out it's an empty threat the better
off they'll both be).


And Debbie writes:

I don't find it impossible
>to believe that Lucius might not carry out more of Draco's desires, such as
>targeting the Grangers or their neighborhood for attack, at Draco's
>suggestion.
>
>Nevertheless, though I am very close to thinking that Draco has gone over the
>edge beyond redeemability, I find it very difficult to accept the premise
>that a 14-year-old child is irredeemably evil, notwithstanding that a
>psychologist for an inner-city juvenile detention center told me just last
>week that in her opinion such cases do exist.  It seems unacceptable in books
>marketed to children, especially one that expressly emphasizes one's choices
>over nature and ability as a determinant of character.

Yup. I live in a city that has more than its fair share of teenage killers
(lost a friend to one by stray bullet a few years ago, even--they were
14-year-olds on bikes shooting at each other with their notoriously bad
aim). It's unfair to judge anyone that young (or for that matter, anyone at
all) as utterly beyond redemption, and this leads to a natural tendency to
downplay the magnitude of the consequences of choices made by the underage.
But the problem with this is that teenage killers' victims are no less dead
than anyone else's. Now of course Draco hasn't killed anyone yet, but he
certainly has made choices--he makes 'em every time he opens his mouth. So
far there's not the slightest indication of any kind of moral questioning
going on in there. None. Nada. And Draco isn't a hungry, poverty-stricken,
uneducated kid from the wrong side of the tracks who's never had any
options, either: he's a spoiled little rich brat who has never failed to
choose the path of least resistance except when it gives him the
opportunity to mess with somebody. I am NOT saying his redemption is
impossible. Only that it is going to require a LOT of Bang, or else I shall
castigate JKR for the writerly crime of inflicting an unrealistic
redemption out of the blue (e.g., Lucas/Vader) for the sake of creating an
uplifting moment for the kiddies (which a lot of kids won't like, being
naturally rapacious as they are and hoping to see the bully who's
terrorized and pissed off the heroes throughout the whole series get
bloodily whacked). I hope not. And being too squeamish to draw blood and
thus being a failure as a Death Eater doesn't count as "redemption,"
either--I mean, I personally think the SINGLE BRAVEST THING anyone has done
in the entire series so far is Peter Pettigrew cutting off his own hand for
Voldemort. Honestly. Could I jump in front of a quick and painless AK to
save someone I loved? Could you? Maybe. Could either one of us _cut off a
hand_, with a knife? I doubt it; I know I couldn't. (That's why I think
Peter _was_ a Gryffindor. He has courage, all right. Courage, in and of
itself, is not inherently morally "good." It just means a certain power to
face things and attempt difficult acts). But that's not a redemption by any
stretch.


Geez, I'm afraid that sounded ranty. I wish you could see the big grin on
my face.

>
 His epiphany, if any were to occur, would be more likely in my
>view to come if he is required to do something difficult, like engaging an
>equal opponent in a confrontation.  To date we have never seen him do
>anything but back down from his threats when pressed, starting back in PS/SS
>when he failed to show up for the wizard's duel.  If he ever felt personally
>threatened, I think he would break down, perhaps blurt out things he
>shouldn't, in effect forcing him to switch sides in acknowledgement of the
>fact that he'll never get the respect of his father.  It's not heroic, but
>IMO it's the best we can reasonably expect from Draco.
>
>Debbie

Yup, I agree. So far. And we're more than halfway through.
>
Penny:

>Well, others have commented on this already, but I'll just say that I
>would find it terribly disappointing if a series that is all about
>*choices* portrays a *child* who is irredeemably evil from the age of 11
>onward.  He's only 14 in GoF.

I don't think a 14-year-old is a child, exactly. Certainly the wizard world
doesn't: he's less than three years away from legal
adulthood/full-wizard-hood. He's only gonna have that excuse, if it counts
as one, for a very little while longer.

>Severus Snape apparently was able to make a life-altering change at a much
>older age, so why not >Draco?  Why is it not believable that an author who
>uses a theme of free choice so readily would set it >up so that a
>character, once seemingly on a set path but then later exposed to the true
>nature of evil >and its implications, might make different choices on his
>road toward maturity & adulthood?

I don't think it's unbelievable at all, but...we don't really know anything
about the circumstances that got Snape to change. But I'll bet they were
pretty horrible; I think if Draco is going to change, his catalyst will be
also. So far, we haven't seen anything. So I'm really only commenting on a
what a loathsome little sh*t Draco is so far. Now, Snape, mind you,
although he is technically a Good Guy, is also a loathsome big sh*t (which
is why I love him), so if Draco becomes a saintly social worker I will be
very skeptical. We don't know how alike they really are, though. We know
that Draco comes from an extremely rich family that buys him everything he
wants (although the Dursleys aren't rich exactly, the parallels with Dudley
still jumped out at me); did Snape? I get the impression not, although I
don't think there's any canon either way. We also get the impression that
Draco is rather more physically attractive than Snape ever was, which among
teenagers makes a huge amount of difference in who has status and power and
who doesn't. So my tendency is to believe that Snape probably had more
quasi-legitimate reasons for resenting the universe than Draco does--IS
there a difference between someone who wants power because he's never had
it and is desperate for a taste, and someone who wants power because he's
always had it and believes he's entitled to it? Not to their victims--but
to anyone else, one is easier to sympathize with than the other; one winds
up there because of low self-esteem, the other because his self-esteem is
entirely too high.


Penny again:

>I suspect Draco is just following the party line (his parents or at least
>Lucius).  Once he's actually put >into a position of seeing the real-life
>consequences, he *might* make a different choice.  I also don't buy that
>everyone's basic character is fixed by the age of 14.  It's my experience
>that most people do a tremendous amount of changing & growing after they
>leave home for the first time -- generally college or first job or
>whatever, ages 18-29 are times of huge change for many people.

Well, the kids in question here have left home for the first time at 11.
But I do see your point. I think where we differ is I'm not sure I *want*
Draco to be redeemed, from a literary standpoint.

AV


So, I remain optimistic that Draco *can* be redeemed.  The possibility is
there, but of course, it's anyone's guess as to where JKR might be going
for certain.
>
>Penny
>





From elfundeb at aol.com  Fri Apr 26 04:09:41 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:09:41 EDT
Subject: Severus Snape is Ever So Evil/Wandless Magic
Message-ID: <12a.1047c1d9.29fa2d05@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38187

Eloise on Cindy's proposal that Snape is Ever So Evil!:

1. Cindy is right.
Is it really possible that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is a sham? Well, 
he's apparently a spy. He must be able  to dissemble. Did he (as I asked once 
before) therefore recruit Pettigrew? Has he been preserving Harry to use his 
blood in that restorative potion when the time was right? 

My comment:

I think Cindy's wrong here (creative, nonetheless!).  Quirrell says he tried 
to kill Harry, presumably at Voldemort's direction, and Snape was performing 
the countercurse to save him.  That's not the action of a faithful servant.  
Besides, if Voldemort got the stone, Harry's blood would not have been 
needed.  And Voldemort surely knew all this, since he was under the turban 
while Snape was cajoling, harassing and attempting to terrorize Quirrell.  So 
I can't buy Snape as being, in truth, the faithful servant.

   Was he *really* 
> 

Or maybe just for himself?  Or for the glory of turning in a fellow professor 
who was out to steal the Stone?
> 
> 2. Voldemort *believes* that Snape is his Faithful Servant, but is actually 
> wrong.
> This could have some merit, I think. I think it was Tabouli who pointed out 
> that it was the perfect cover for (loyal to Dumbledore) Snape to pretend to 
> Voldemort that he was a double agent, to the point where he was outed 
> publically as an ex-DE.
> 
I don't think the evidence supports this one either.  Voldemort says 
specifically that the faithful servant procured Harry's attendance in the 
graveyard.  Unless Crouch Jr is lying through his teeth to get credit for 
Snape's actions (which I suppose is possible), Crouch is the faithful 
servant.  See also the comment to #1:  Voldemort saw what Snape was doing in 
PS/SS, so he's unlikely to still believe that Snape is a double agent working 
for him.

> 3. Voldemort is actully referring to Crouch/Moody. Well this is evidently 
> what we're *supposed* to believe, at least by the denoument. It's what 
> Crouch 
> Jr himself believes (although this again could be misdirection). I am 
> inclined to think, though, that the fact that Voldemort talks about how his 
> Faithful Servant will rejoin him, at a that point we know is in between his 
> torturing of Bertha for information and his arrival with Pettigrew at the 
> 

I agree that Crouch was the true faithful servant.  I also think Voldemort 
intended the DEs to believe that Crouch was one of the three dead, which 
would leave Snape as the faithful servant, in their eyes.  The DEs 
undoubtedly believe that Crouch is dead, and they make no noise when 
Voldemort references 3 dead in his service; they only begin to murmur at the 
revelation of the faithful servant.

Why would Voldemort misdirect his followers?  To protect the identity of his 
real spy at Hogwarts.  I doubt Voldemort trusts even those DEs that have 
returned; after all, he accuses them of having been unfaithful all these 
years. (Would you trust slime like this?)  He knows what Karkaroff did when 
he was caught, and he's not sure that others who avoided capture might not do 
the same in the future. Moreover, Crouch's usefulness as Moody does not end 
merely because he has delivered Harry to Voldemort.  Moody may have had a 
one-year appointment at Hogwarts, but he is still an Auror and has the 
contacts to be very useful.   Had the plan worked, Harry would have been 
dead, but the war would still be on, Voldemort would need a spy, and Snape is 
a turncoat and therefore unavailable.  Crouch/Moody would still appear to be 
the loyal Auror; he might even have been planning to finger Snape, whose 
loyalty to Dumbledore might still be suspect, as the insider who got Harry 
out of Hogwarts. 

There's only one thing wrong with this idea -- it's what Eloise calls the 
"creative accounting" problem.  Crouch is both the third dead DE and the 
faithful servant.  There are two ways around this:  one is Eloise's solution:

Well.....A nasty moment there. I don't think I can agree that Snape *is* the 
Faithful servant <sigh of relief>, but I do think Cindy is right in pointing 
out that we have an unidentified, dead DE. Any takers?

Me:

This is one possibility,  but if there IS a third dead DE, nobody except 
Voldemort knows he's dead.  Given this limitation, who could it be and why?  
Did someone give his body to be the baby?  Or die another way?  I'll have to 
comb the books for some likely candidates.

Or maybe the sixth missing DE is really alive -- either cowardly like 
Karkaroff or otherwise prevented from coming.  That's in fact what Cindy 
suggested:

> Who would that be?  Crouch Jr., of course.  See, Voldemort isn't stupid.  
> Well, maybe he is.  But he's smart enough not to reveal to the DEs 
> that Crouch Jr. is alive.  Voldemort tells his DEs in the graveyard 
> that there are three dead DEs knowing full well that the number is 
> only two.  

Perhaps Voldemort plans to to have the sixth person sacrifice himself as the 
one who has left Voldemort's service forever, to protect Crouch/Moody's 
cover.  This would set up the opportunity for a future revelation that some 
living person we know is a former DE.  Eloise and Cindy have already named 
some candidates, including my favorite, the Ever So Evil! Ludo Bagman.  I 
think I would prefer this scenario but for the fact that an outright lie is 
not JKR's typical method of misdirection.  (And isn't it one of the stupid 
things that literary villains always do to ensure their downfall, tell the 
truth in front of their intended victims while staging the pre-murder 
spectacle?)  

Either way, my view (Crouch as Faithful Servant But DEs Think Otherwise) 
leaves FMAT dead as a doornail, Fourth Man Avery still afloat on Theory Bay 
(I'm hovering near in my scuba gear), Snape's status as double agent before 
Voldemort's fall intact, and Snape safely out of the clutches of Evil.

But that's before we address scenario #4, from Caroline's husband:

> 4.  Snape is Ever So Evil but NOT a faithful DE
> 
> According to this theory, Snape has Evil Overlord ambitions of his 
> own.  He is keeping Harry alive because he knows Harry's Big Bangy 
> Secret (whatever that may be), the secret that means that Harry has 
> the best chance of anyone to defeat Voldemort.  
> 
> Snape's hatred of Harry doesn't have anything to do with LOLLIPOPS 
> (too soft for a guy like Snape, in my husband's opinion.)  Nope, 
> Snape resents Harry because he has to keep him alive.  Because for 
> whatever reason, Harry can do what Snape himself can't (defeat 
> Voldemort).
> 
> Then, of course, there will then be a scene in book #7, after Harry 
> defeats V, in which Snape turns and thanks Harry for ridding the 
> world of Voldemort? now no-one stands in the way! (followed by evil 
> laughter, general shock, and Ron?if still alive?making I-told-you-so 
> 

Hmm.  I shouldn't like this scenario at all, as I maintain Snape left the DEs 
at least in part out of principle.  But it fascinates.  I think he's on 
Dumbledore's side, for now.  But I can envision the possibility of Snape 
making the big power grab when Harry defeats Voldemort, even if he's not 
planning it now.  Why would he do this?  For the same reason he joined the 
DEs in the first place.  All his life, he's been bested in everything by 
Potter (well, almost everything; I still think Snape makes a better potion).  
At Hogwarts, Potter got everything he wanted (academic superiority, 
popularity, Lily, Dumbledore's approval, or any or all of the above), and 
Snape couldn't succeed in getting him expelled for his transgressions.  Now 
he's switched sides at great personal risk and labors in obscurity at 
Hogwarts, and once again Potter gets everything he wants.  Snape hounds 
Quirrell for an entire school year to get the information about the Stone, 
and when he's ready to catch Quirrell red-handed, Harry steps in and gets the 
glory for himself.  In PoA, just when the capture of Sirius Black was in his 
reach, Potter & friends step in, knock out Snape and arrange Black's escape 
-- all with Dumbledore's approval.  His efforts to get Potter expelled fall 
on Dumbledore's deaf ears (well, in truth, I don't think Snape expects Harry 
to be expelled, and it's not in Snape's interest as a former DE with a price 
on his head).  Snape is angry and frustrated about Potter, but he's older and 
wiser than when he was a teenager, and he knows better than to become a toady 
to Voldemort even if he could convince Voldemort not to kill him outright.  
But he wants glory for himself and a Potter will always stand in the way.  In 
the end, when Potter fulfills Trelawney's prophecy, it's too much for Snape 
and he initiates a coup, which will fail.

Well, that's the history repeats itself theory.  It would be consistent with 
JKR's evident dislike of him.  And while I like the parallels, I cannot, at 
least for now, accept the idea of Snape's treachery.  I think I'll remain a 
Snapefan.

And on Eloise's question about Voldemort's inability to do wandless magic:

Voldemort tells the DEs in the graveyard that without his body he was "as 
powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself 
. . . for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required 
the use of a wand."

Voldemort is capable of doing magic, because he states that he broke Bertha's 
Memory Charm himself, before he got Pettigrew to get him the baby body.  But 
evidently magic powerful enough to procure him a body requires a wand, and a 
powerful hand to wield it. 

Debbie, who wishes her husband had interesting theories about Snape, or 
anyone else for that matter


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From elfundeb at aol.com  Fri Apr 26 04:40:05 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:40:05 EDT
Subject: Pettigrew's Not Brave (WAS: Father Figures and Bad Choices)
Message-ID: <a1.265dd786.29fa3425@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38188

In a message dated 4/26/2002 12:05:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
fluxed at earthlink.net writes:

> I personally think the SINGLE BRAVEST THING anyone has done
> in the entire series so far is Peter Pettigrew cutting off his own hand for
> Voldemort. Honestly. Could I jump in front of a quick and painless AK to
> save someone I loved? Could you? Maybe. Could either one of us _cut off a
> hand_, with a knife? I doubt it; I know I couldn't. (That's why I think
> Peter _was_ a Gryffindor. He has courage, all right. Courage, in and of
> itself, is not inherently morally "good." It just means a certain power to
> face things and attempt difficult acts). 
> 
Interesting.  I had just about reached the conclusion that Pettigrew was the 
opposite of Harry:  Far from having characteristics of all four houses, 
Pettigrew is fit for none of them.  Cutting off his hand, and earlier his 
finger, IMO is a simple act of self-preservation.  If he doesn't cut off his 
finger and stage a bangy escape, Sirius kills him.  If he doesn't cut off his 
hand in the graveyard, it's AK for him.  This is not bravery.  In fact, 
self-preservation is the alpha and the omega of his life.  He has no other 
ambition whatsoever.  That's why he tagged along with James and Sirius.  
That's why he joined Voldemort when things were looking tough for the good 
guys.  That's why he framed Sirius and was content to live for 12 years as a 
rat.  It's why he went back to Voldemort when his cover was blown.  And we're 
told that he's not clever and we certainly know he's not loyal or 
hardworking.  But they had to stick him somewhere.  So the Sorting Hat put 
him with people who would take pity on him, but he betrayed their trust 
anyway.  But by putting Pettigrew (who can be relied on to beg for mercy when 
all else fails) with people like James (who it is said would have shown the 
same mercy Harry did), he ends up owing them a life-debt.  So maybe the 
Sorting Hat did know best.

Debbie, apologing for ranting and nominating Pettigrew as Most Pathetic 
Character in HP as well as Least Likely to Be Redeemed


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 26 05:35:14 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 05:35:14 -0000
Subject: Voldemort Recruiting Harry
In-Reply-To: <aa9lgk+ns5u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaaoui+d5oi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38189

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "greg_a126" <grega126 at a...> wrote:
> 
> While I do agree that his mother's sacrifice was a necessary 
portion 
> of his survival and without it he almost assuredly would've died, I 
> just can't believe that it was the only reason.  I think it was 
> something inherently "special" about Harry, combined with his 
> mother's sacrifice that added up to him being the first and only 
> person to ever survive the Killing Curse.  And I think whatever it 
> is that's "special" about Harry is related to both PRofessor 
> Trelawney's prediction, as well as why Voldemort showed no interest 
> in killing Harry's mother.
> 

I agree with you completely, Greg. I think it has to do with Harry 
being the heir of Gryffindor, personally. It's also probable to me 
that James was also the heir, who naturally passed it down to his 
son. Lily meant nothing to Voldemort.

I also think that this all has to do with what happened when Salazar 
Slytherin left Hogwarts and that as the Slytherin heir, 
Riddle/Voldemort is seeking some kind of revenge. 

Zoe Hooch






From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Apr 26 08:55:39 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 04:55:39 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Severus Snape is Ever So Evil (was: Re: BIG PROBLEM WITH ...
Message-ID: <66.20179b33.29fa700b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38190

Carolione quotes me:

> Eloise, exploring the possibilities that Snape might be Ever So Evil, 
> wrote:
> 
> 1. Cindy is right.
> Is it really possible that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is a sham? 
> Well, 
> he's apparently a spy. He must be able to dissemble. Did he (as I 
> asked once 
> before) therefore recruit Pettigrew? Has he been preserving Harry to 
> use his 
> blood in that restorative potion when the time was right? <snip>
> 
> 2. Voldemort *believes* that Snape is his Faithful Servant, but is 
> actually 
> wrong. <snip>
> 
> 3. Voldemort is actually referring to Crouch/Moody. <snip>
> 
> 
> Now me:
> I would like to add a #4 (actually, this is my husband's theory, 
> which he completely, 100%, believes in):
> 
> 4.  Snape is Ever So Evil but NOT a faithful DE
> 
> According to this theory, Snape has Evil Overlord ambitions of his 
> own.  He is keeping Harry alive because he knows Harry's Big Bangy 
> Secret (whatever that may be), the secret that means that Harry has 
> the best chance of anyone to defeat Voldemort.  
> 
> Snape's hatred of Harry doesn't have anything to do with LOLLIPOPS 
> (too soft for a guy like Snape, in my husband's opinion.)  Nope, 
> Snape resents Harry because he has to keep him alive.  Because for 
> whatever reason, Harry can do what Snape himself can't (defeat 
> Voldemort).
> 

Aaagh! Someone's let the boggart out of the wardrobe again! *That* was it . 
*That* was the thing I'd thought of when I was having my attack of acute 
paranoia.

(me, back at the end of Jan):
>Ok, you have been warned...
>What if he's been saving Harry to preserve him for that restorative (yikes!) 
*potion*?
>Perhaps there was some problem with the Philosopher's stone solution to >
Voldemort's problems. Perhaps he was doubting Quirrel's loyalty to Voldemort 
and >that was the reason for threatening him. Perhaps ( this gets even worse) 
he wants >Harry's blood in the potion because he knows that it will make 
Voldemort vulnerable >and he wants to be the Big Bad Wizard? Perhaps... (I 
told you I was paranoid)...

Yes, it makes sense. Of course he wanted to save the Stone from Voldemort. He 
didn't want Voldemort to be immortal. He instead played a waiting game, 
waiting just like Voldemort for the right moment, the moment when Voldemort 
would be strong enough to regain his body and then aids the process by 
providing the recipe (at least) of a potion which contains the fatal flaw 
which will allow his downfall - Harry's blood. Is it a coincidence, I ask 
myself, that Snape is an expert in the very field which restores Voldemort to 
his body?

Cindy:
>5.  Snape was somehow able to return to Voldemort at the end of GoF, 
>yet show up at the leaving feast without so much as a slimy hair out 
>of place.  Why?  Voldemort knows Snape is really an Evil Double Agent 
>who has tricked gullible Albus Dumbledore into believing Snape is 
>Dumbledore's spy.

Eloise:
The problems I have with this scenario are, 
1. We don't actually *know* that this was his mission.
2. Why did he go a whiter shade of sallow when he was sent?

Perhaps Truly Evil!Snape *is* an ex-DE? 
Then he *would* be the one who has left for ever and if Dumbledore was 
sending him back, then he would have a problem and would be apprehensive.
*But* ......perhaps things are the other way round. He may have duped 
Dumbledore into thinking that he's a double agent in his service, i.e. that 
Voldemort still thinks he's loyal. I hate to be bangy about this, it's 
against my principles, really, but that pink, flamingo-featherboa seems 
curiously to be trying to entwine itself around me........

Of course....he still has to get that potion used. But then, Pettigrew 
doesn't know that he's no longer loyal to Voldemort. He's held in too much 
contempt to be told such details. Who else would he go to to get instruction 
in the art of making an obscure and difficult potion?

Or........as the flights of fancy get ever more fantastic...........He hasn't 
duped Dumbledore, they're in it together. He's Dumbledore's agent in his 
(D's) quest to be the undisputed greatest wizard of the age. (No, I don't 
believe it either.)

So now we can envision Snape, sitting in his dungeon, his long fingers 
caressing the fur of that kitten - you must particularly remember Snape's 
kitten, Best Beloved [that's a ref to Kipling, for anyone who's worried about 
a sudden outpouring of affection] (I suppose it has to be black, not white 
and fluffy, or we'd have noticed the cat hairs by now) evilly planning his 
future as Voldemort's successor.

Yeah. We've got motive, we've got means, we've got a sick personality (Snape 
has, I mean), we've got the protection of The Order of the Flying Hedgehog if 
we're wrong. We've even got the cat!
Truly Evil!Snape is unassailable.

Eloise
(Thinking playing Devil's Advocate is quite as much fun as playing Sherlock 
Holmes. And no need for that dratted pipe!)
PS has anyone named that kitten yet? Should we ask Porphyria, who seems to 
have a way with naming cats? 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From emmbp at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 26 05:37:46 2002
From: emmbp at yahoo.com (emmbp)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 05:37:46 -0000
Subject: Extent of Vold War I (was: Fourth man help)
Message-ID: <aaap3a+3e6k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38191

In reading the posts about the Fourth Man Hovercraft Theory, and the 
DE speculations, a question resurfaced that has been worrying me for 
some time:  What was the Extent of Voldemort's Power during his 
reign of terror?  Did it just include Britain, or was it more than 
that?  We see some variety of names in the DEs, but not much. eg 
Karkaroff doesn't sound distinctly British, but who knows, right?

The international teams at the Tri-Wizard Tournement seem to 
concerned with Voldemort's return, but not at all as much as the 
others.  Did they not have people dying, Dark Marks appearing above 
their houses?

On another line of inquiry, how much International Cooperation is 
there really?  Sure Percy has his office to run, but Cauldron 
Bottoms seem trivial...  The British Wizards as a whole seem very 
apprehensive of their invited guests during both the World Cup and 
the Tri-Wizard Tourny.  This fear of Other is a very interesting and 
very salient topic in and of it's self, esp. when JKR's has said 
that bigotry is one of the things she most despises and seem to be a 
driving factor in Canon to date.

Well, back to the Lurk Cave, Robin...

May you live in interesting times,
Brady





From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Apr 26 11:29:02 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:29:02 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound (WAS: Snape's Secret ...
Message-ID: <1a2.1545ef0.29fa93fe@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38192

L Terrell Gould III:
> Ten points to anyone who knows what potion he's drinking!  Oh, what the 
> heck, I can't stand the suspense. It polyjuice potion! Hmmmmm............ 
> maybe Mrs. A. Figg is in actuality a young, beautiful, and 
> much-beloved-by-Snape protectress of Harry under the influence of polyjuice 
> potion (now backed by canon?), much in the same prolonged way as Crouch Jr. 
>  
> 
> I will allow space here for your many "Aha!"s,  applause,  and the throwing 
> of trinkets of your affection (chocolate is best).
> 

Eloise:
Well, chocolate always *is* best, isn't it? :-)

Now, here's the thing........Where is the beautiful young Arabella harvesting 
the hair from? Surely we can't have one of Dumbledore's trusted allies with a 
poor old lady locked up in a trunk, can we? Are there in effect, two Arabella 
Figgs, the one we know of and a willing, if slighly bald, old lady accomplice?

I have to say, though, that Charis Julia's and Cindy's suggestion that she is 
actually Sirius' rather than Snape's inamorata does make more sense, to me at 
least:

Cindy:
>Remember how Sirius escaped from 
>Azkaban?  He somehow knew exactly the neighborhood where he could 
>find Harry.  Sirius also inexplicably knows that Harry has been 
>living with his aunt and uncle.  How could Sirius, locked in Azkaban 
>for 12 years, know these details?  

>Pillow talk, my friends.  Sirius escaped Azkaban and went straight to 
>his old flame Arabella, and she told him where to find Harry and 
>filled him in on the doings in Harry's life.  Arabella, bless her, 
>never believed Sirius was guilty.  She knew him too well.  

>Finally, we know that Sirius was sent to notify the old crowd of 
>Voldemort's return, including Arabella.  That raises the question of 
>how Dumbledore can be so sure Arabella won't turn Sirius in to MoM on 
>sight?  The answer, I think, is that Arabella and Sirius go way back, 
>so to speak.

Eloise:
Mmm.....Perhaps this *is* the reason for her lonely exile. Sirius is 
arrested. Arabella is heartbroken and can't live with the looks she gets as 
the despised lover of that dangerous criminal, Sirius Black, so she turns her 
back on the wizarding world and, known only to Dumbledore (and the hair 
donor) goes to do what she can to protect her beloved's godson. I mean, it's 
a pretty big thing she's done, isn't it? 

My only question is how Sirius knew where to find Arabella, since presumably 
she is only living two streets from Privet Drive in order to keep an eye on 
Harry and so, like Harry, must have moved at appoximately the time of his 
arrest. I certainly can't see that he could have known or either of their 
whereabouts whilst he was in prison. Of course, perhaps he knows the little 
old lady (her mother? her aunt?) from whom she's harvesting the hair and went 
there first.

But if Cindy is wrong about this, then it does raise the questions of exactly 
*how* Sirius locates Harry so precisely and why Arabella can be trusted to 
believe in Sirius when apparently everyone, down to Dumbledore has believed 
he is guilty. Mind you, the same goes for Mundungus Fletcher. It can't be 
coincidence that he is to go to Lupin's first: he can vouch for him.

I suppose that it is just possible that Sirius did know where the Dursleys 
lived. After all, presumably James would have known. I can just imagine him 
taking Sirius to see exactly how awful his in-laws were. But he wouldn't have 
know that Dumbledore had taken Harry there, would he? I'm sure he wouldn't 
have contemplated doing it and he wouldn't expect it of Dumbledore, either.

And of course, getting back to the point, if she *is* Sirius' girlfriend, 
then Sirius (who as I have said before strikes me more as the 'hex first, 
think later' type, than Snape does) would be pretty ticked if Bertha caught 
him snogging the enigmatic Florence behind the greenhouse. Particularly if 
the aforementioned Flo was Snape's girl. Is this Cindy's trapezoid thingy?

Eloise, stopping before she gets too confused.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Fri Apr 26 12:48:10 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:48:10 -0000
Subject: Extent of Vold War I (was: Fourth man help)
In-Reply-To: <aaap3a+3e6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aabiaa+3qq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38193

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "emmbp" <emmbp at y...> wrote:
> In reading the posts about the Fourth Man Hovercraft Theory, and 
> the DE speculations, a question resurfaced that has been worrying 
> me for some time:  What was the Extent of Voldemort's Power during 
> his reign of terror?  Did it just include Britain, or was it more 
> than that?  We see some variety of names in the DEs, but not much. 
> eg Karkaroff doesn't sound distinctly British, but who knows, right?

We know that Karkaroff attended Hogwarts, so that would indicate that 
he's English (since JKR dislikes transfer students, especially 
American ones). I tend to think that Voldy was a British problem, but 
that has a bit of canon against it. For example, the students of 
other schools in GoF know of Harry, which wouldn't be as probable if 
it was a local problem. The canon in favor of being strictly-british 
is the fact that it *wasn't* a war, but more a form of terrorism, and 
(except for recent examples), terrorism is mainly an inside problem 
which it's implicitly agreed that other countries must not 
participate in.

> May you live in interesting times,
> Brady

"I wish you never know the curse of living through interesting times"

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Apr 26 13:31:48 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:31:48 EDT
Subject: Karkaroff/transfer students (was:Extent of Vold War I)
Message-ID: <16b.cb97ee4.29fab0c4@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38194

Grey Wolf:
> We know that Karkaroff attended Hogwarts, so that would indicate that 
> he's English (since JKR dislikes transfer students, especially 
> American ones).

Pardon?

Karkaroff does say 'Dear old Hogwarts', it's true, and 'How good it is to be 
here' (not 'back here', or 'here again') but even if he has been there 
before, where does it say it was as a student? It has been speculated that he 
taught there, but it could even be just previous visits that he's referring 
to.

To be fair, his English is perfect and JKR doesn't characterise his speech 
with any indications of an accent, as she does with Krum or Mme Maxime, a 
fact I hadn't noticed until now. But that could just be down to education, 
his time spent in the UK, (at the very least whilst he was a DE) or a natural 
facility like Crouch Sr's.

Where does JKR say she dislikes American transfer students? I have never 
heard that quoted.

Eloise, who is glad to say that a number of American families (and a variety 
of other  of ex-pats) enrich her childrens' school.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Fri Apr 26 14:33:27 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:33:27 -0000
Subject: Official Nel Question #4; Draco; House-elves
Message-ID: <aabofn+8avc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38195

Howdy!

I wrote:
> For that's the final criterion and perhaps the most important: a
> "classic" must be an overall *satisfying* story. And that
satisfaction
> must continue, no matter how often or how many times one returns.
The
> reader need not be *happy* with every authorial decision, but rather
> the reader must concede that, after all, it's for the best.

And Eileen replied:
> Oh, I don't know. I'm still very offended over what George Lucas did
> with Star Wars. Nothing can convince me that Return of the Jedi was
> for the best. I find it totally unsatisfactory, and yet I love Star
> Wars. Maybe movie classics are different than book classics?

No, it's not that they're different, it's that I misexpressed myself.
What you're talking about is the textbook definition of the dichotomy
between "happy" and "satisfied."

For my part, RotJ was okay with me, if a little weaker than ESB.
Episode I, otoh, was where I felt betrayal. But I too, find SW to be
"classic," and the satisfactory parts (still) outweigh the things I'm
not happy about. Ditto Star Trek and the misery that was movie V.
Also, remember that RotJ is not "really" the end of the story as Lucas
conceived it (though it's doubtful we'll see the end).

Like I said, it's a delicate distinction and one that's difficult to
pin down, and it's different for every individual. Let me ask it this
way: even if you can conceive of a plotline or event that in your
estimation would have been "better" than the actual, can you accept
the story as it is, warts and all?

Here's an HP example: Let's take the whole Lily angle. *Hypothetically
speaking,* if LOLLIPOPS turned out to be true, to what extent would it
affect the "satisfactory" feeling of the non-Lily/Snape camp? Some
might lose interest altogether: the presence of a Lily/Snape SHIP, no
matter how it is presented, may ruin the HP experience for them. But
some might *accept* its validity as a plot curve, while still not
*liking* that it is so. Indeed, while *hating* that it is so. And the
reverse is true for the LOLLIPOPS crew if Rowling ignores that angle.

For the majority of people, though, I think that such an authorial
decision would not have an overweening impact on whether they continue
to like/recommend/laud/purchase the series as a whole. It depends on
how pivotal the information is, of course, but overall, I think most
people who already love the books could convince themselves to be
"satisfied," if not joyously "happy," about that turn of events.

Start to make sense?


A word on Draco:
There's only one year when Draco is on the team and Harry plays a
Quidditch final: Third year. And in that year, Draco *would* have
caught the Snitch if Harry hadn't had a slightly faster broom. Well,
at least the second time; but the kid would've tugged on Harry's twigs
regardless. The point is, when he saw the Snitch, he hauled broom.

As for the second-year match, perhaps his lapse in concentration
taught him an important lesson about the game, which is reflected in
his playing during the match in 3rd year.

"It all depends on the points"
In chapter 9 of PoA, Fred and George try to figure the odds of making
the finals. The first scenario requires that Hufflepuff lose to
Ravenclaw and Gryffindor win against Ravenclaw and Slytherin both.
They then go on to mention Slytherin losing to Hufflepuff as another
possibility.

I actually drew up a round-robin score sheet for the year.

For those who don't know what a round-robin looks like, it's a grid:

      G          H          R          S
G     x


H                x


R                           x


S                                      x


Because each team can't play itself. So the "points" are added to each
team as it plays the other houses: Horizontally, one records the
points "earned" by the team. Ignore the vertical, it's just for
bookkeeping.

I hope the spacing comes out on everyone's computers. Anyway, we know
some facts about the matches for the year, at least by the time we
reach the finals. We know:

1. Gryffindor lost to Hufflepuff by 100 points.
2. Gryffindor won over Ravenclaw by 200 points (up by 50 when Harry
caught the Snitch).
3. Gryffindor was behind Slytherin's overall score by 200 points going
into the final (Oliver's constant mantra to Harry).

Given these facts, we can construct a grid like this:

     G          H          R          S          Total Points

G    X         +50       +230         ?          +280


H   +150        X         ?           ?


R   +30         ?         X           ?


S    ?          ?         ?           X          +480


We don't know how many points Slytherin won in each match, but we know
it must total 480 between the two teams, because it has to be 200 more
than Gryffindor. We also know that Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff each must
have totals LESS than Slytherin's 480, or on the basis of points, one
of them could still win or tie for the cup even if Gryffindor wins by
160, as they do. Regardless of how one divides those points, Slytherin
must have won the other two games by a wide enough margin to put
Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw out of the running. So let's say that George
is right and Ravenclaw beats Hufflepuff, but each of them loses to
Slytherin by 240 points. One last grid, and then I'm done:

     G          H          R          S          Total Points

G    X         +50        +230       +230         +510


H   +150        X        +50           0          +200


R   +30        +100        X           0          +130


S   +20       +240       +240         X           +500


That's what the point spread looks like for 3rd year. Looks like
Slytherin must have won over the other two handily. Some of those
victories must be due to Draco, unless we're to believe that their
Chasers and Beaters are so good, no one can keep up with them.


Whew. Can it be that JKR actually got something *right* having to do
with maths? Nah....


House Elves:

May 20...May 20...May 20...May 20...May 20....

Um. We're on schedule to discuss the Philip Nel questions about house
elves on May 20.

Rest assured, I'm paying acute attention to what is being said on this
thread currently and adding my own thoughts as we go. It's only
through great restraint that I am not posting a comparison of
House-elf speech with the "slave dialect" that others mention.

But I figured, I just bored everyone quite enough with that Quidditch
nonsense!

Gwen




From nobradors at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 26 13:51:17 2002
From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:51:17 -0000
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again
In-Reply-To: <f3.1a1c6783.29f9e345@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aabm0l+7lm1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38196

Jacey wrote:

> One more point I need to mention is tradition. Supposing house 
elf's enjoy 
> work, and even servitude, by nature. House elves seem to think of 
their 
> positions, serving their masters, as honorable and not liking their 
master, 
> or wanting to be freed, is shameful. This way of thinking might 
have come 
> about with the help of wizards who encouraged it, to their obvious 
benefits. 
> It seems reasonable that elves could enjoy servitude by nature, but 
not 
> necessarily the way of thinking that doing anything else is 
shameful. To me, 
> this seems to be a sign that house elves are really not in healthy 
positions. 

You've got a point here. It's obvious to me that house-elves DO LIKE 
serving, and being freed is shameful because it means they'll no 
longer SERVE, that's what they live for. With this in mind, 
Hermione's S.P.E.W. would be nonsense. But this brings us to the 
second fact, that is, the elves' shame and even flagellation when 
they disagree with their masters. And yes, it's insane. Someone 
commented in this list that the elves' real bond was the place they 
served in rather than the people they served and I think it's a very 
interesting theory. As shown in canon, they live in manors and 
mansions, i.e., certain places, and generations of elves serve in the 
same place. In this sense, being freed would be the same as being 
banished. (it would also explain faithful attitude towards nasty 
masters like Crouch Jr.). 

 
> They may be a different species, but they are sentient, and thus 
deserving of 
> the same rights as any other sentient creatures, true? For muggles 
yes, but 
> in the magical world, perhaps not. 

Probably many elves have nice masters. Obviously Hogwarts elves are 
not mistreated. (Dumbledore must probably know the names of them all!)
 
> Hermione will be unsuccessful in convincing house elf's they 
>deserve freedom. 
> I think that they will have to discover this on their own (still 
>supposing 
> that is best). Perhaps something very big will make the hose elf's 
>doubt 
> their set-in-stone beliefs. 

Might be. IMHO, What house-elves need to be talked about is not right-
away freedom but the right to stand up to their masters if they feel 
mistreated - Be able to go to the Department for the Regulation and 
Control of Magical Creatures and ask to be relocated because master 
is bad to poor elf. This would also give people whose homes haven't 
got elves to get one (Molly Weasley would probably make tea to her 
elf if she had one!)

Summarizing: Elves are OK, but something should be done to ensure 
they're treated well, despite not being human.

CHeers, 

Nuri





From nobradors at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 26 13:27:43 2002
From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:27:43 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's baby form 
In-Reply-To: <aa88v2+krrd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aabkkf+3rut@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38197

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "linda_mccabe" <lmccabe at s...> wrote:
>I 
> realized that I have never felt that Voldemort was able to create a 
> babyish form by mere magical means and elixirs.  I don't think that 
> combination would create flesh enough to hold a wand and torture 
> Pettigrew.  Nope.  I think he had Pettigrew abduct a living 
> breathing human baby for him to possess.
>  I think that Wormtail did this the old 
> fashioned way.  He snatched the child while a parent wasn't 
> looking.  It would have been within Wormtail's skill level 

Might be, but I've been thinking of another theory: Bertha Jorkins. 
In the book (sorry, I don't have it with me now), it says something 
about Peter seducing her... I guess he might probably got her 
pregnant and Voldemort took the offspring's body. Perhaps it wasn't 
even a 9-month pregnancy, as magic and perversion are involved.

> BTW, here's a nasty thing to picture in one's mind:  Pettigrew 
> having to change Voldemort's dirty diapers.   EWWWWWWWW.

<ROTFLMAO> Yuck! 

"Nuri"




From ladjables at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 26 15:45:08 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 08:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Permission to Board LOLLIPOPS/SNAPECLIFF
In-Reply-To: <a9kttn+94pe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020426154508.17578.qmail@web20405.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38198

To Ahketsi, anglinsbees, adatole and Amanda:
Since the Official Discussion on House-elfs is around
the corner, I hope you won't mind if I hold off on
replying to your posts.

But meanwhile:

>Tabouli is snickering in unseemly fashion.  I like
>this idea.  In fact, it inspires a new, and, er, R
>rated acronym... V.I.A.G.R.A. (Voldemort Is A Genie
>Running Amok, no relation to FIAGRA, which is about
>Flitwick).  Adds a whole new dimension to "Lord
>Voldemort had risen again"...

Captain Tabouli,  I am shocked!  What sort of
unskipperlike behaviour is this?   What precisely are
you doing aboard the H.M.S Lollipops, may I ask?


--- archgarchus <Kimstr at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >  Another Snape/Lily parallel that I am not sure
has
>been mentioned is Snape/Lily/James =
>Heathcliff/Cathy/Edgar in Emily Bronte's WUTHERING 
>HEIGHTS. Heathcliff (the brooding antihero) is
>rejected by Cathy and  makes the life of her daughter
>(by Edgar)  miserable. I do not need to illustrate
>the obvious parallels with HARRY POTTER. 

O archgarchus! (waving frantically at archgarchus)
Hi!  You're not alone in your Bronte fixation-I
mentioned a while back that Snape had some
Heathcliffian tendencies. ("Mention" being the
operative word though).  There's something about a
dark, windswept, rebellious orphaned type pining for
his one true love, isn't there?  Oh the angst!  I also
like the idea that Snape may have been abandoned as a
child-gives him something in common with Harry, as
well as shaping his outlook on life.  Perhaps as an
urchin Snape haunted the infamous Knockturn Alley.
Here he was exposed to Dark magic, which explains why
he knew more curses than his fellow 11 year olds at
Hogwarts (Sirius' words).  Hence a fascination with
the Dark Arts that dates from childhood. 

Unfortunately, my own theorylet "S.N.A.P.E.C.L.I.F.F."
(Swarthy Nursling Abuses Potter jr., Enraged he Caused
Lilly's Immolation; will Fester Forever) never left
the harbour.  Perhaps Captain Tabouli needs some extra
ballast for the H.M.S. Lollipops, in which case
S.N.A.P.E.C.L.I.F.F. is ready to be of service!  She
needs to get back to the business of running her ship
anyway.  V.I.A.G.R.A. indeed...

Ama, who will forever languish in Theory Bay, paddling
her inflatable raft in the shallows, too distracted by
the pellucid waters, the flotsam and jetsam, the gulls
squawking, to ever have a life at sea...  
                              










__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/



From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 26 15:51:35 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:51:35 -0000
Subject: If I had to choose between Ron and Draco...(was: Draco & broomsticks & lines)
In-Reply-To: <aa9ogh+u5fv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aabt27+3eou@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38199

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> > Now, it puzzles me that Draco redemptionists don't really want 
> > him to have anything to be redeemed from. 
> 
> I think he's been nasty, mean, destructive, prejudiced and 
> occasionally violent. He's played dirty and been malicious and 
> spiteful.
> 
> I also think, in degrees, that Ron's been mean and destructive and 
> certainly prejudiced ("Get away from me, werewolf!"; house elves 
> like work; giants are "not very nice".) . 

To be fair, at the time he said that, Ron was under the impression 
that said werewolf was conspiring with Sirius Black to kill Harry 
(and Sirius had just managed to break Ron's leg--have you ever been 
terribly coherent and sympathetic/empathetic while suffering this 
type of physical pain?).  He also bravely and loyally offered up his 
own life while suffering from the broken leg.  Afterward he was fine 
with Lupin.  And Hagrid and the twins say exactly the same things 
about house elves that Ron does, but we don't think less of THEM for 
it.  And when Ron was saying that giants are "not very nice," he was 
soft-pedalling it for Harry; he could have put this in much more 
graphic terms, as giants had evidently done some truly horrific 
things.  He's Hagrid's friend also, and he quickly says that he 
doesn't think Hagrid is that way.  Ron is not bad-mouthing giants--
he's being truthful, so Harry knows exactly how bad it will be if 
anyone finds out about Hagrid.  Ron is very realistic about these 
things, IMHO. 

OTOH, if Lupin hadn't quit after Snape "outed" him as a werewolf, do 
you think either Draco or Lucius Malfoy would have let the matter 
rest?  He left under his own power before he could be kicked out or 
before someone like Draco decided to come after him with silver.  The 
Malfoys OWNED Dobby, remember, and I'm betting that Draco is one very 
big reason why Dobby was so shocked by Harry's niceness when they 
met.  I wouldn't want to be Draco's slave, I'll tell you that.  
(Okay, people, get your minds out of the gutter!)  And the Malfoys 
had it in for Hagrid even before the giant mess hit the press.  In 
CoS, Lucius comes along with Fudge when Hagrid is taken to Azkaban, 
insults his home, and tells Dumbledore that the governors are 
removing him as headmaster.  Fun dude.  Draco is DEFINITELY learning 
nastiness at his father's knee.  Then Draco expends all that energy 
pretending to be hurt by Buckbeak, all because it will get Hagrid in 
a huge amount of trouble and distress him when Buckbeak is killed.

> Hermione's engaged in at least one act of violence - slapping 
> Draco. 

??  She wasn't sleeping, and he definitely had it coming.

> Harry's played dirty in Quidditch to some degree 

When did Harry ever play dirty in Quidditch?  What is playing 
dirty "to some degree?"

> and been destructive (admittedly when provoked) at the Dursleys'. 

Provoked?  Is that what we're calling his hell-like life there now?

> And let's not even talk about Snape. 

'Kay. <g>

> And I do think that if he doesn't get a good sharp shock, he's 
> going to meander behind Lucius in perpetuity and never think for 
> himself or do anything that's a result of his own conclusions, 
> rather than his father's. And that's what I mean when I say that 
> his characterisation is set up for a redemption - because it's a 
> fascinating way to show how important thinking for yourself and 
> making a choice, even if that choice goes against what you've been 
> raised to do, as long as that choice is to do the right thing. 

Well, given that JKR has pretty roundly denied that Harry and Draco 
will be fighting evil together, making the argument that the text 
seems to be pointing in that direction is almost a moot point.  (She 
could of course change her mind.)  All in all, we have someone who's 
lived all his life in the lap of luxury and his father and mother 
have indicated to him that winning is the most important thing, not 
how you get there.  Appearances matter above all else.  While Ron 
sometimes errs in this direction, (the conversations about who he's 
going to ask to the Yule Ball spring to mind) it doesn't sum up his 
character and can probably be put down to his age.  All three members 
of the Trio have had their moments of succumbing to the lure of 
appearances, but it's the rule and not the exception for Draco Malfoy.

--Barb

http://groups.yahho.com/group/HP_Psych
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb

New Triangle Prophecy Cookie!
http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/showthread.php?
s=&threadid=8190





From j-lipton at nwu.edu  Fri Apr 26 16:33:23 2002
From: j-lipton at nwu.edu (Jamie Lipton)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:33:23 -0500
Subject: Karkaroff/transfer students 
Message-ID: <006701c1ed40$15a1ce20$03fea8c0@death-computer>

No: HPFGUIDX 38200

Says Eloise:
>To be fair, his English is perfect and JKR doesn't characterise his speech
with any indications of an accent, as she does with Krum or Mme Maxime, a
fact I hadn't noticed until now. But that could just be down to education,
his time spent in the UK, (at the very least whilst he was a DE) or a
natural
facility like Crouch Sr's.

I've done a lot of (largely pointless) thinking about this, and I can't come
to a conclusion.

On the "Karkaroff is British" side, we have the following:
- he doesn't speak with an accent, whereas all of the foreigners do
- he was a Death Eater during VWI, which we're thinking was a British
phenomenon
- he does say something like "Dear old Hogwarts, how good it is to be
here," which leads the reader to think that he went there (although he could
very well still be from another country)

On the "Karkaroff is not British" side, we have:
- the fact that he is headmaster of a foreign school, and therefore must be
fluent in whatever language they speak there.  (I know the currect theory
says something about German and northern Latvia - but I heard one very
interesting theory that said Durmstrang is located in outer space :-))
- he was probably a teacher at Durmstrang a long time before becoming
Headmaster, making me think that his tenure at the school coincided with his
Death Eater years.  So was VWI really just a British disturbance?  Maybe
not.
- he is described as having a 'fruity' and 'unctuous' voice, which may be
indicative of a non-British vocal timbre
- the name "Karkaroff" is eastern European in origin, and so are all of the
names of his students.  Of the people we know who go or have gone to
Hogwarts, very few have last names that have any origin other than
British/Scottish/Irish etc.  Parvati and Cho have no doubt been discussed on
the list - I am pretty sure they were both raised, if not born, in Britain.
Probably Malfoys and Lupins once lived in France, but no longer - and as
both those names serve connotation purposes, it doesn't seem likely that JKR
meant them to convey a French origin.

Karkaroff is one of those minor characters that has to have a back story to
make sense.  Hopefully we'll see one in a future book, but in the meantime,
maybe someone on the list would like to make one up.

- Jamie




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Fri Apr 26 16:34:14 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:34:14 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What is _right_ vs. what is _easy..._
References: <006e01c1ecc2$18b1ca80$bdae1cce@hppav>
Message-ID: <000901c1ed40$34095040$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38201

<snip Eric lovely theory about Harry's "moral descent">

Although I am also of the opinion that Harry will suffer some sort of moral descent at some point during the series (and hurt others in the process), I cannot imagine Harry actually letting Malfoy go to jail if he were innocent.  He might hum and haw about it for awhile, but even without Hermione's counsel, he would inevitably do the right thing.  It's just him.  I  mean, he spared the man who killed his parents and made his life miserable for 10 years.  I have a hard time believing that he wouldn't show the same mercy to a boy that -- although a major prick -- hasn't really done *much* lasting harm to him or his friends.  Of course, Draco and Co. have certainly made the trio's life a living teenage hell -- but sending them unjustly to Azkaban would be too petty for Harry, IMO.

But great theory.

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Zarleycat at aol.com  Fri Apr 26 17:01:18 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:01:18 -0000
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound (WAS: Snape's Secret ...
In-Reply-To: <1a2.1545ef0.29fa93fe@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aac14u+420t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38202

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
 
> Eloise:
 
> My only question is how Sirius knew where to find Arabella, since 
presumably 
> she is only living two streets from Privet Drive in order to keep 
an eye on 
> Harry and so, like Harry, must have moved at appoximately the time 
of his 
> arrest. I certainly can't see that he could have known or either of 
their 
> whereabouts whilst he was in prison. Of course, perhaps he knows 
the little 
> old lady (her mother? her aunt?) from whom she's harvesting the 
hair and went 
> there first.
> 
> But if Cindy is wrong about this, then it does raise the questions 
of exactly 
> *how* Sirius locates Harry so precisely and why Arabella can be 
trusted to 
> believe in Sirius when apparently everyone, down to Dumbledore has 
believed 
> he is guilty. Mind you, the same goes for Mundungus Fletcher. It 
can't be 
> coincidence that he is to go to Lupin's first: he can vouch for him.


I still think that Dumbledore will alert the old crowd that a curious 
messenger will soon arrive to explain in detail what is happening, 
that Dumbledore trust this messenger and that they are not to 
interfere with his movements.  

> I suppose that it is just possible that Sirius did know where the 
Dursleys 
> lived. After all, presumably James would have known. I can just 
imagine him 
> taking Sirius to see exactly how awful his in-laws were. But he 
wouldn't have 
> know that Dumbledore had taken Harry there, would he? I'm sure he 
wouldn't 
> have contemplated doing it and he wouldn't expect it of Dumbledore, 
either.

Yes, Sirius knows about Petunia and Vernon from James and Lily, pre-
Azkaban.  Presumably, he also knows of any other Potter or Evans 
siblings that exist.  If there are no other siblings, then the 
logical assumption would be that Harry would be living with the 
Dursleys because they are family.  The Dursleys lived at Privet Dr. 
in 1981, so why not see if they're still living there?

 If there are other siblings or grandparents who may still be alive, 
then perhaps Sirius plotted out a geographic itinerary that would 
take him to these various places on his way to Hogwarts.  In that 
case, Privet Drive just happened to be the first stop on the way, and 
it turned out to be the right location.

Marianne









From huntleyl at mssm.org  Fri Apr 26 16:51:03 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:51:03 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Emotional Snape, Mrs Figg's cabbage aroma, genie Voldemort
References: <003d01c1ecd4$2a23dda0$a525ddcb@price>
Message-ID: <001101c1ed42$8d5ea8a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38203

>As for Snape's bullying ways, in my experience the 
>most vicious bullies are those who have been bullied 
>themselves.  Yes, the victim turned bully syndrome.  
>It lends support to my theory that Snape was badly 
>mistreated by his carers as a child (witness all those 
>curses he'd learned by *11*... who did he plan to use 
>them on?).  Horrible business, being bullied and 
>abused by people you're dependent on.  Not much to his >credit if he has, indeed, subconsciously repeated the 
>pattern by bullying his students as an adult.  But not 
>impossible.  Not at all.

Perhaps not badly mistreated in the conventional sense, though.  I doubt his parents hit him or consistently pelted him with verbal assaults.  However, I think Snape's parents were probably Dark Wizards, probably middle-to-high class, pureblood (basically like the Malfoys).  I don't believe that they *hurt* him, per se.  But growing up in an environment where the people you love and admire (kids always love their parents when they're young, even abused kids) are well...evil, wreaks havoc on one's emotional growth.  I have a feeling they mostly ignored him except to express their disapproval when he was particularly disappointing.  Maybe Snape first started learning curses to impress them, but accidentally destroyed something/got in the way when he was trying to show them, and therefore only got a tongue-lashing for his efforts.  I have a feeling the only time he ever got any attention was when he was an awful brat.

I think this is also the reason that he primarily joined the Death Eaters...he wanted his parent's approval (even if they were dead at this point) -- to be everything they were and fanatically pursue the ideals that they held.  But when he *really* got deep into it, he finally realized that it just wasn't what he really wanted and defected.

But he's still a big nasty and I hate him.  Grr.

I think there's something similar going on with Malfoy, by the way...although not exactly the same.  Draco seems more materially spoiled and sure of himself.  Different personalities..you know.  Although if Draco is going to turn "good" is anyone's guess.  I think JKR has indicated that he won't, but who knows?

Just as a side note...the situation you described for Snape was strikingly similar to the one that Harry grew up in.  And yet Harry is still the sweet kid that he is...Speaks to how special a person he really is, doesn't it?  *smiles and glows* Harry's a good kid, you know?  

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ladjables at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 26 16:51:50 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound (WAS: Snape's Secret Snogging)
In-Reply-To: <20020426004445.13104.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <20020426165150.91356.qmail@web20408.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38204


--- "L. Terrell Gould, III" <lterrellgiii at icqmail.com>
wrote:
> Ten points to anyone who knows what potion he's
> drinking!  Oh, what the heck, I can't stand the
> suspense. It polyjuice potion! Hmmmmm............
> maybe Mrs. A. Figg is in actuality a young,
> beautiful, and much-beloved-by-Snape protectress of
> Harry under the influence of polyjuice potion (now
> backed by canon?), much in the same prolonged way as
> Crouch Jr.  

I seem to be taking credit for everything today, but I
once worked out this elaborate theory (luckily for
HPlisters never posted) that Arabella was in fact a
warrior princess married to Snape, and part of the
reason Snape despised Harry so much was because, as
Arabella's job, he took Arabella away from Snape.
Being a modern career woman, and highly principled,
Arabella would not give up her assignment to simply
make Snape happy anyway.  

A long distance relationship can wear on one's nerves.
 Imagine how it affected Snape's!  But then, I hit
upon a snag-in the Parting of the Ways, Dumbledore
sends Sirius to alert the "old" crowd, including
Arabella Figg (p 713, GoF, US edition).  Snape's
standing right there, and we get no reaction?  When,
of all people, Sirius is being sent to get his "wife"?
 That's really odd.  So I surmised that if Arabella is
going to be anyone's flame, then it's probably Sirius.
 

I really want Arabella to be young and feisty.  We
alredy have McGonagall and Trelawney.  Now we need a 
Xena. 

L.Terrell: 
> > I do, however,  sincerely think that there is some
> connection between the mysterious Mrs. Figg smelling
> like cabbage, and the polyjuice postion tasting like
> it. Maybe it seeps into your whole system with
> prolonged use (longer than Crouch/Moody used it, it
> would seem), ultimately exiting in a witch or
> wizard's perspiration. *Yuck* 

I'm definitely with you on the cabbage/polyjuice
potion connection.
Ama






>
-------------------------------------------------------------
> Sign up for ICQmail at
> http://www.icq.com/icqmail/signup.html
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/



From j-lipton at nwu.edu  Fri Apr 26 17:44:05 2002
From: j-lipton at nwu.edu (Jamie Lipton)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:44:05 -0500
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound 
Message-ID: <007501c1ed49$f5f73920$03fea8c0@death-computer>

No: HPFGUIDX 38205

Also, not only would Sirius know of Petunia and Vernon, he's probably *met*
them.  They most likely met during the preparations for Lily's wedding, or
at the wedding itself.  Who knows?  Sirius might have been at Petunia's
wedding, or at Lily's parents funeral (if they are dead, which is assumed
because Dursleys are his only living relatives.)  There's a fanfic waiting
to happen.

Anyway, I never assumed Sirius needed outside help in locating Harry.  I
figured he got to Privet Drive using his prior knowledge of the Dursley
family and a good old-fashioned Muggle phonebook.

- Jamie






From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com  Fri Apr 26 17:37:45 2002
From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:37:45 +0100
Subject: How will Battle commence?
References: <aa6983+dt0s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009501c1ed49$19cdd580$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 38206

Something occurred to me last night as I listened to the middle movt. of
Bruckner's 9th symphony at the Royal Festival Hall, London.

If there was a "war" between the two sides let's call them - Voldemort's and
Dumbledore's - how would this be carried out?  With the wizarding world
somewhat backward in some areas (quills, ink etc.,) they are far ahead in
others (portkeys, floo powder, wands) how would such a conflict be waged?

It seems that in the past conflict Voldemort governed by a reign of terror
with many afraid to confront and fight. Now, with Harry having survived and
shown Voldemort is not (quite) indestructible, will a different sort of
battle be fought? Many assume it will end with Harry and Voldemort going
one-to-one;  with some proposing Dumbledore will die on the way; and/or
Snape coming to a sticky end or becoming a hero depending on whether you are
of the S.I.N.G school (Snape Is Not Guilty) or a more vengeful version of
L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. (see Tabouliani for in depth explanations and
discussions).

Will it boil down to groups of wizards fighting hand to hand (a la GoF in
the churchyard when chasing Harry) or will it be more organised and subtle?

Felicia




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Fri Apr 26 17:48:21 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:48:21 -0000
Subject: transfer students 
In-Reply-To: <16b.cb97ee4.29fab0c4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aac3t5+li1t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38207

Eloise wrote:
> Where does JKR say she dislikes American transfer students? I have 
> never heard that quoted.
> 
> Eloise, who is glad to say that a number of American families (and a 
> variety of other of ex-pats) enrich her childrens' school.

JKR was heavily pressed by movie directors and publishers to include an 
"American transfer student" in Hogwarts, because they felt it would 
make the books more attractive to American children (that was way back, 
when she started to be famous). JKR, obviously, put her foot down with 
her characteristic strenght, and no transfer students have been 
included. I probably expressed the idea the wrong way: JKR does not say 
she hates transfer students in general, only she doesn't want transfer 
students in Hogwarts at this particular time, and it doesn't look, at 
any rate, as if transfer students can happen (the only canon is Draco's 
option of attending Durmstrang.

Anyway, can you believe I never considered Karkaroff as a Hogwart's 
teacher? I picture him about Snape's age, and I think he was, in fact, 
a Slytherin from the same year (I don't picture snape in first-name 
basis with anyone else appart from a school peer). He's just too young 
to have teached at Hogwarts and THEN getting to head of another school. 
But then again, I've got no canon, just gut-feeling, so for all I know 
he could be old enough.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who loves transfer students, no matter where they can from, 
since they normally know enough English for him to practise.





From heidit at netbox.com  Fri Apr 26 17:57:08 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 10:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: transfer students
In-Reply-To: <aac3t5+li1t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020426175708.13036.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38208


--- grey_wolf_c <greywolf1 at jazzfree.com> wrote:
> Real-To:  "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at jazzfree.com>
> 
> Eloise wrote:
> > Where does JKR say she dislikes American transfer
> students? I have 
> > never heard that quoted.
> > 
 
> JKR was heavily pressed by movie directors and
> publishers to include an 
> "American transfer student" in Hogwarts, because
> they felt it would 
> make the books more attractive to American children
> (that was way back, 
> when she started to be famous). JKR, obviously, put
> her foot down with 
> her characteristic strenght, and no transfer
> students have been 
> included. 

I'm not sure which source you're looking to for the
theory that this was something the publishers or
editors tried to put in before the books were
published. I ran a search on our own Aberforth's Goat
page - http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ -
which contains a database of all JKR interviews that
he's been able to track down - it seems to be all of
them - and what I found was this quote: 

One question that begs asking after Ms. Rowling's
success in the United States is why none of the
characters are Americans. In the latest books the
reader is introduced to European wizards, and there is
even a passing reference to African and American
wizards. But Ms. Rowling, who calls herself "a very
British person," insists that "you are not going to
get an American exchange student brought in at
Hogwarts." 

"I don't think it would be faithful to the tone of the
books to have somebody brought in from Texas or
wherever it might be," she said. 
***************

I'd love to know where you got the info about it being
something the publishers pushed for a few years back,
though!

heidi
http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/



From pennylin at swbell.net  Fri Apr 26 18:09:45 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:09:45 -0500
Subject: If I had to choose between Ron and Draco...(was: Draco &
 broomsticks & lines)
References: <aabt27+3eou@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004501c1ed4d$8bbf0160$8bf54041@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 38209

Hi --

Heidi: > I also think, in degrees, that Ron's been mean and destructive and 
> certainly prejudiced ("Get away from me, werewolf!"; house elves 
> like work; giants are "not very nice".) . 

Barb responded: 

<<<And when Ron was saying that giants are "not very nice," he was 
soft-pedalling it for Harry; he could have put this in much more 
graphic terms, as giants had evidently done some truly horrific 
things.  He's Hagrid's friend also, and he quickly says that he 
doesn't think Hagrid is that way.  Ron is not bad-mouthing giants--
he's being truthful, so Harry knows exactly how bad it will be if 
anyone finds out about Hagrid.  Ron is very realistic about these 
things, IMHO.>>>

Eh......weeelll, but don't forget this passage:

**************

"Well, I thought he must be," she [Hermione] said, shrugging, "I knew he couldn't be pure giant, because they're about twenty feet tall.  But honestly, all this hysteria about giants.  They can't all be horrible...it's the same sort of prejudice that people have towards werewolves...it's just bigotry, isn't it?"

Ron looked as though he would have liked to reply scathingly, but perhaps he didn't want another row, because he contented himself with shaking his head disbelievingly while Hermione wasn't looking.

***********************

This suggests to me that: (a) Ron still has some lingering prejudice against werewolves, Lupin notwithstanding (and don't forget Ron doesn't get another opportunity to interact with Lupin after the Shrieking Shack scene.... and so we don't *know* that Ron does or will do fine with interacting with Lupin after it's confirmed that he is a werewolf), and (b) he doesn't think much of Hermione's thoughts about giants *or* werewolves *or* bigotry.  

<<< (Snip) Afterward he was fine with Lupin.>>>

See above.  I'm not so sure we can say this as yet.

<<<And Hagrid and the twins say exactly the same things 
about house elves that Ron does, but we don't think less of THEM for 
it.>>>

Actually, *I* do think less of them for it.  I don't think it *materially* affects how I feel about the Twins or Hagrid ... but I sure wouldn't say that I let them off scot-free mentally while thinking Ron is prejudiced.   

Penny


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com  Fri Apr 26 17:55:02 2002
From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:55:02 +0100
Subject: I had Karkaroff down as older
References: <aac3t5+li1t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000701c1ed4b$7d622a40$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 38210


> Anyway, can you believe I never considered Karkaroff as a Hogwart's
> teacher? I picture him about Snape's age, and I think he was, in fact,
> a Slytherin from the same year (I don't picture snape in first-name
> basis with anyone else appart from a school peer). He's just too young
> to have teached at Hogwarts and THEN getting to head of another school.

Funny, I pictured Karkaroff as older and ugly even he seems to be a
contemporary of Snape?  Maybe this is down to the fact he is head of
Dumstrang and, how English of me,) I just assume he is older and wiser (at
least until he showed is true colours).

I also think that as we tend to see things from Harry's poitn of view we
would not necesarily hear Snape talking to anyone on first name terms.

Felicia

* wondering of flying to the U.S. is a good idea*






From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Apr 26 18:21:06 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:21:06 -0000
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound (WAS: Snape's Secret ...
In-Reply-To: <1a2.1545ef0.29fa93fe@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aac5qj+36uo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38211

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> 
> Eloise:
> 
> 
> I have to say, though, that Charis Julia's and Cindy's suggestion 
that she is  actually Sirius' rather than Snape's inamorata does make 
more sense, to me at  least:
> 
> Cindy:
> >Remember how Sirius escaped from 
> >Azkaban?  He somehow knew exactly the neighborhood where he could 
> >find Harry.  Sirius also inexplicably knows that Harry has been 
> >living with his aunt and uncle.  How could Sirius, locked in 
Azkaban for 12 years, know these details?  
> 
> >Pillow talk, my friends.  Sirius escaped Azkaban and went straight 
to his old flame Arabella, and she told him where to find Harry and 
> >filled him in on the doings in Harry's life.  Arabella, bless her, 
> >never believed Sirius was guilty.  She knew him too well.  
> 
> >Finally, we know that Sirius was sent to notify the old crowd of 
> >Voldemort's return, including Arabella.  That raises the question 
of how Dumbledore can be so sure Arabella won't turn Sirius in to MoM 
on sight?  The answer, I think, is that Arabella and Sirius go way 
back,so to speak.
> 
> Eloise:
> Mmm.....Perhaps this *is* the reason for her lonely exile. Sirius 
is  arrested. Arabella is heartbroken and can't live with the looks 
she gets as  the despised lover of that dangerous criminal, Sirius 
Black, so she turns her  back on the wizarding world and, known only 
to Dumbledore (and the hair  donor) goes to do what she can to 
protect her beloved's godson. I mean, it's  a pretty big thing she's 
done, isn't it? 
> 
> My only question is how Sirius knew where to find Arabella, since 
presumably she is only living two streets from Privet Drive in order 
to keep an eye on  Harry and so, like Harry, must have moved at 
appoximately the time of his  arrest. I certainly can't see that he 
could have known or either of their  whereabouts whilst he was in 
prison. Of course, perhaps he knows the little  old lady (her mother? 
her aunt?) from whom she's harvesting the hair and went  there first.
> 
> But if Cindy is wrong about this, then it does raise the questions 
of exactly  *how* Sirius locates Harry so precisely and why Arabella 
can be trusted to  believe in Sirius when apparently everyone, down 
to Dumbledore has believed  he is guilty. Mind you, the same goes for 
Mundungus Fletcher. It can't be  coincidence that he is to go to 
Lupin's first: he can vouch for him.
> 
> I suppose that it is just possible that Sirius did know where the 
Dursleys  lived. After all, presumably James would have known. I can 
just imagine him  taking Sirius to see exactly how awful his in-laws 
were. But he wouldn't have  know that Dumbledore had taken Harry 
there, would he? I'm sure he wouldn't  have contemplated doing it and 
he wouldn't expect it of Dumbledore, either.
> 
> 
I actually believe that Sirius *did* know that Dumbledore had 
arranged for Harry to go to the Dursleys. In POA p154 UK edition 
Hagrid says:

"But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, 
Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's. Black 
argued, but in the end he gave in".

By the time Harry was sent to the Dursleys we are told they were his 
only living relatives, then presumably Sirius did know that it was 
the Dursleys and not some other unknown aunt and uncle. I think he 
would have known how bad the Dursleys were as he and James were 
close. That doesn't mean he knew where they lived, although this is 
possible.

I've also wondered about the sort of reception that Sirius might get 
from the "Old Crowd". Dumbledore has known of Sirius' innocence for a 
whole year and has also been aware of strange occurrences indicating 
Voldemort's rise to power. Is it not then possible that Dumbledore 
has alerted some of his faithful followers to Sirius' innocence - or 
at least to its possibility?

Ali


> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lmccabe at sonic.net  Fri Apr 26 18:23:01 2002
From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:23:01 -0700
Subject: request for acronym - missing Weasley child
Message-ID: <AKELJIAAIHFIEHOGCIBLOEBKCJAA.lmccabe@sonic.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38212


This is a call to Tabouli and/or Grey Wolf for an acronym to one of my pet
theories.  The one with the slightly obscured alphabetic naming scheme to
hide a missing Weasley son which would make Ron a seventh son and have
latent psychic powers which would allow him to flourish outside the shadows
of his brothers and Harry.

I know we've had quite a bit of discussion regarding the likelihood of this
naming scheme and theory since I brought it up a few weeks ago.  After
reading everyone else's thoughts I've adapted what I think is likely.  I
think they started with the alphabet scheme as follows:

Arthur

Bill (Billius?)
Charlie
?David?
(Edward) Percy
Fred
George

-----Death of David and/or Weasley Grandparents who were watching him w/
Dark Mark over the Burrow leading to the re-examination of naming scheme.
Maybe it's bad luck, so they abandon it ----


Ron
Ginny

Anyway, if you could come up with a snappy acronym to describe this plot
theory, I'd be grateful.

Thanks,
Athena




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Fri Apr 26 18:33:59 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:33:59 -0000
Subject: How will Battle commence?
In-Reply-To: <009501c1ed49$19cdd580$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <aac6in+m7m2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38213

Felicia Rickmann wrote:
> Something occurred to me last night as I listened to the middle movt.
> of Bruckner's 9th symphony at the Royal Festival Hall, London.
> 
> If there was a "war" between the two sides let's call them -
> Voldemort's and Dumbledore's - how would this be carried out?  With
> the wizarding world somewhat backward in some areas (quills, ink
> etc.,) they are far ahead in others (portkeys, floo powder, wands) 
> how would such a conflict be waged?

Now, here's an interesting question indeed, one which I hadn't 
considered but which is the logical extension of how VWI was carried 
out.

Let's start, if you wish, with some canon ("C"), some facts ("F") and 
some deductions ("D") (mainly from my own theories).
	- There are, in fact, 3 sides to be considered: V, AD and MoM (F)
	- There was no "war". Only terrorism acts (D)
	- People lived in fear of arriving home and finding the Death 
mark, which would mean the death of a loved one (C)
	- Dumbledore et co. fought Voldemort in some way yet unknown, but 
Harry's parents were involved to the neck, and had to go into hiding. 
Were they losing? They were protecting Harry? (F)
	- Whatever the previous reason is, it has to accomodate the fact 
that Sirius was thinking of going into hiding himself (C)
	- The MoM fought the mortivores with their own weapons: Aurors 
could use the forbidden curses to anyone suspected of being a 
deatheater. (C)
	- Any number of families were hit heavily by the mortivores, and 
several examples have been explained (Crouchs, Longbottoms, Weasleys?) 
(F)

Possibility A:
Assuming that Voldemort is going to give another try to the old 
strategy (which really seems to be working OK), he's going to start 
moving around his cloacked mortivores and have them murder random 
wizards (possibly of recent muggle descent, to keep to the ideology) 
and take down aurors families when this start to fight back. The MoM 
will at the very beggining do nothing, refusing to believe the 
possibility of Voldemort's return, and then go back to the Auror 
defense with forbidden curses (if you ask me, that's even worse than 
Voldemort's deatheaters, see "In the name of the father" for something 
like it). AD side will secure as many allies as possible and go back to 
the plans they had back in 1980, which were probably just stalled, not 
forgotten, since AD has always been sure V would return (Hagrid thought 
exactly that in PS, and he believes whatever D believes).

Possibility B:
Voldemort is ready to listen to his trusted liutenants (which would 
indicate he has visited www.eviloverlord.com), especially to advice 
coming from Lucius, about keeping it low-key. They would start to take 
over the MoM by guile, misdirection and Imperius and use the Aurors 
aginst AD and co. AD would be forced to initiate a civil war which he 
couldn't win, or think up a plan I cannot even begin to fanthom. (If I 
were Voldemort, this one would be the one I'd take, but then again, I 
*have* read www.eviloverlord.com).

Possibility C: (insert your own theory. I'm hopping everyone in the 
lists thinks of one)

Non-possibility A:
What I really don't believe it will happen is an all-out war. There 
just isn't enough people to form an army, and a wizard war would be too 
destructive and alarm-raising. Even Voldemort knows they cannot reveal 
themselves to muggles, they'd be swarmed over with little or no 
difficulty (we muggles have guns. Better than AK, anytime). Except if 
some other listee comes with some idea to support the army war, I think 
it will be a terrorism war in any of it's multiple forms, with no 
actual face-to-face confrontations except at a very small scale.

> It seems that in the past conflict Voldemort governed by a reign of
> terror with many afraid to confront and fight. Now, with Harry having
> survived and shown Voldemort is not (quite) indestructible, will a
> different sort of battle be fought? Many assume it will end with
> Harry and Voldemort going one-to-one;  with some proposing Dumbledore
> will die on the way; and/or Snape coming to a sticky end or becoming
> a hero depending on whether you are of the S.I.N.G school (Snape Is
> Not Guilty) or a more vengeful version of L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. (see
> Tabouliani for in depth explanations and discussions).

Note: the name is "Tabouli". Haven't the faintiest of what it means, 
though. I remember because it reminds me of a continent in a fantasy 
book.

People are still too much afraid of Voldemort. For God's (any god's) 
sake, they're afraid of saying his NAME. The fact that Harry killed him 
(as most people believe) hasn't been enough for the people to get over 
him, so, no, I don't think that Harry's victory will make any 
difference --> they're too chiken-livered.

> Will it boil down to groups of wizards fighting hand to hand (a la
> GoF in the churchyard when chasing Harry) or will it be more 
> organised and subtle?
>
> Felicia

When push comes to shove, Voldemort is no general. He takes a direct 
approach of his "job": if he needs someone killed, he sends his 
deatheaters. If he needs someone taken rid off *urgently*, he takes 
matters into his own hands (as all evil overlords do). In short,  I 
believe it will be another graveyard scene.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, a bit peeved at the fact that only he seems to be waiting 
until Monday to discuss elf rigths.





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Apr 26 18:31:24 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:31:24 -0000
Subject: I had Karkaroff down as older
In-Reply-To: <000701c1ed4b$7d622a40$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <aac6ds+gp07@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38214

I've always imagined Karkaroff as being in his mid-fifties or so --
about half-way between Snape and McGonagall.  Part of it is that he's
described as having white hair; that's usually (though not always) in
indicator of age.  And he is the Headmaster of a major wizarding
school -- a position of pretty high respect and authority.  I suppose
it's possible for a truly exceptional person to rise that high by his
mid-thirties, but Karkaroff doesn't strike me as a particularly
exceptional person.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Fri Apr 26 19:28:51 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:28:51 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound (WAS: Snape's Secret Snogging)
References: <20020426165150.91356.qmail@web20408.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c1ed58$99f28f80$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38215

Ama Wrote:
>I really want Arabella to be young and feisty.  We
>alredy have McGonagall and Trelawney.  Now we need a 
>Xena. 

It seems to me that many people in the HP fanverse are longing for a "feisty" female character -- even those who think that the likes of Hermione, McGonagall, and Co. are "strong" enough.  Evidence to this is the fact that almost all fanfiction writers portray Ginny as feisty -- despite she hardly has a personality at all yet in canon (aside from blushing alot).

I however, don't feel the need for a "feisty" female character.

No -- don't look at me like that, hear me out.  First, to me, Hermione is feisty enough in her own way -- of course, Hermione is *all* things for me, but that's beside the point.  The one thing we *don't* have is a VIOLENT female character.

Not one.

I mean, for violent boys, we've got...hrm.  Voldemort, various DE's...Sirius *definitely* has a violent side, as does Ron...

...perhaps violent isn't the best word to describe it...I just want...Edge!  That's what I want.  A female character (preferably quite evil) with her own let-me-take-over-the-world-so-others-will-have-to-give-me-pedicures-with-their-teeth schmaz.  Who care's about Voldemort?  I mean, what a boring villain.  He hasn't even got sex appeal (unless you go in for the scaly type).

So yeah, I want a woman that steals the scenes she's in..the way Dumbledore or Voldemort or Sirius do.  And I don't particularly want her in a relationship with Snape -- unless, of course, that relationship involves him tied to a bed and gagged.  ^_^

Feisty Shmiesty.

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Apr 26 19:04:22 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:04:22 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound /Exchange students
Message-ID: <19f.158b874.29fafeb6@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38216

Ali:
> I actually believe that Sirius *did* know that Dumbledore had 
> arranged for Harry to go to the Dursleys. In POA p154 UK edition 
> Hagrid says:
> 
> "But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, 
> Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's. Black 
> argued, but in the end he gave in".
> 
> By the time Harry was sent to the Dursleys we are told they were his 
> only living relatives, then presumably Sirius did know that it was 
> the Dursleys and not some other unknown aunt and uncle. I think he 
> would have known how bad the Dursleys were as he and James were 
> close. That doesn't mean he knew where they lived, although this is 
> possible.
> 

Excellent. Someone thought of looking up the canon whilst others of us 
indulged in idle speculation! :-). 
I still go with Arabella being Sirius' girlfriend though. And I bet James 
took him to have a look (and a bit of Muggle teasing?), before they went to 
have a good laugh at the Dursleys down the pub.

.........................

Heidi helpfully found this interview apropos JKR's attitude to American 
exchange students:

>One question that begs asking after Ms. Rowling's
>success in the United States is why none of the
>characters are Americans. In the latest books the
>reader is introduced to European wizards, and there is
>even a passing reference to African and American
>wizards. But Ms. Rowling, who calls herself "a very
>British person," insists that "you are not going to
>get an American exchange student brought in at
>Hogwarts." 

>"I don't think it would be faithful to the tone of the
>books to have somebody brought in from Texas or
>wherever it might be," she said. 

One thing I would say is that is a piece of journalism. We don't know exactly 
what she said or in what context it was said. Journalist edit things don't 
they, even if they aren't all of the Rita mould.
We know that JKR has very strong views about the contents of her books and 
that the plot outlines and characters already exist in her tantalising little 
notebooks. I think she was simply baulking at the idea of changing her story 
lines or characters for the sake of greater popularity in America. 
Presumably, a foreign exchange student just wouldn't be necessary to the plot 
line and to put in a character merely for the sake of including a different 
accent or set of cultural traits would be at best superfluous and at worst 
patronising.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ladjables at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 26 19:58:05 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound (WAS: Snape's Secret Snogging)
In-Reply-To: <000d01c1ed58$99f28f80$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <20020426195805.58314.qmail@web20404.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38217


--- Laura Huntley <huntleyl at mssm.org> wrote:
> First, to me, Hermione is feisty enough in her own
> way -- of course, Hermione is *all* things for me,
> but that's beside the point.  The one thing we
> *don't* have is a VIOLENT female character.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> I mean, for violent boys, we've got...hrm. 
> Voldemort, various DE's...Sirius *definitely* has a
> violent side, as does Ron...
> 
> ...perhaps violent isn't the best word to describe
> it...I just want...Edge!  That's what I want.  A
> female character (preferably quite evil) with her
> own let-me-take-over-the-world-so-others-will-have-
> to-give-me-pedicures-with-their-teeth schmaz.  Who 
> care's about Voldemort?  I mean, what a
> boring villain.  He hasn't even got sex appeal
> (unless you go in for the scaly type).
> 
> So yeah, I want a woman that steals the scenes she's
> in..the way Dumbledore or Voldemort or Sirius do. 
> And I don't particularly want her in a relationship
> with Snape -- unless, of course, that relationship
> involves him tied to a bed and gagged.  ^_^
> 

You know, you'll probably get your wish in the form of
Mrs. Lestrange.  My radar is telling me that's she's
going to be very, very evil, she just oozes it, the
way Karkaroff oozes sleaze.  But she'll ooze with
style!  If she turns out to be fabulously villainous,
then I guess I could give up Arabella, Warrior
princess.  But I think Madam Rosmerta has to loan her
tavern for insurrectionary plottings first for me to
be happy with the female characters in HP. 
Ama, who now has to go to sleep with visions of Snape
gagged and bound to a bed.  Morning, come quickly.  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/



From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Fri Apr 26 20:20:05 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:20:05 -0000
Subject: request for acronym - missing Weasley child
In-Reply-To: <AKELJIAAIHFIEHOGCIBLOEBKCJAA.lmccabe@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <aaccpl+joop@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38218

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Linda C. McCabe" <lmccabe at s...> wrote:
> 
> This is a call to Tabouli and/or Grey Wolf for an acronym to one of
> my pet theories.  The one with the slightly obscured alphabetic
> naming scheme to hide a missing Weasley son which would make Ron a
> seventh son and have latent psychic powers which would allow him to
> flourish outside the shadows of his brothers and Harry.
> 
> I know we've had quite a bit of discussion regarding the likelihood
> of this naming scheme and theory since I brought it up a few weeks
> ago.  After reading everyone else's thoughts I've adapted what I
> think is likely.  I think they started with the alphabet scheme as 
> follows:
>
> Arthur
> 
> Bill (Billius?)
> Charlie
> ?David?
> (Edward) Percy
> Fred
> George
> 
> -----Death of David and/or Weasley Grandparents who were watching him 
> w/Dark Mark over the Burrow leading to the re-examination of naming 
> scheme. Maybe it's bad luck, so they abandon it ----
> 
> 
> Ron
> Ginny
> 
> Anyway, if you could come up with a snappy acronym to describe this
> plot theory, I'd be grateful.
> 
> Thanks,
> Athena

Note: Bad Prose near. Jump to the "Which means" if unwilling to read:

Once again, the Grey Wolf's presence is needed. Facing the prospect of 
facing the burning pain of summer heat, the Grey Wolf is tempted of 
ignoring the call of the wind. But there is a job to be done, and his 
wolfish muzzle itches to howl victory again. Soon, he is flying over 
the cold wastes of the northern reaches of his territory, the cold wind 
and icy snow refreshing him. The idea sparks, grows and develops. His 
erratic course shaprly turns southward and, as an arrow shot from a 
bow, he seeks his objective. He can smell it in the air: Athena is 
near. He hunts her down, and is soon is facing her. She seems unafraid, 
but still is reluctant to to get near the Grey Shadow before her. He 
drops a paper he was carrying and, before the sheet touches the ground, 
he is gone. Cautious, Athena picks up the paper. It's signed with what 
looks like a dog's paw, and an acronym can be read. A howl can be heard 
in the air. A victory howl.

---------------
Which means:
I've taken up the challenge, and I proudly present my latest acronym. 
However, the genius behind TAGWATCH is still Tabouli so, Athena, before 
deciding wait to see her own proposition. Anyway, my own is:

H.A.G.R.I.D. W.A.N.T.S. B.R.A.S.S. D.R.A.G.O.N.S. A.S. P.E.T.S.
(Harry's All-seing Groupie Ron Is Demonstrated: Weasleys Alphabetically 
Naming Their Sons Brings Ron As Seventh Son, David (Really A Good 
Offspring) Never Survived Although Still Positionating Exactly Third 
Son)

I still prefer my own theory, which carries my own acronym, RICK'S THE 
BOSS (Ron Identified with the Chess Knight: Surpasses his Triumfant, 
Heroic or Excellent Brothers Only by Self-Sacrifice), but unfortunately 
they're pretty much incompatible. Anyway, I hope you like the acronym.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Fri Apr 26 20:32:59 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:32:59 -0000
Subject: Draco and Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <aabofn+8avc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aacdhr+4h64@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38219

Replying to myself, how gauche!

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gwendolyngrace" wrote...
A completely too long and involved examination/proof for the Quidditch
point spreads in PoA.

But only after hitting send did I realize that it didn't space out the
grids all pretty in webview. Those of you who received the emails got
it fine, but because of the problems in webview, I put a slightly
better-explained version of the proof in our Files/Essays section.

Basically, it proves empirically that Draco and Harry are evenly
matched as Seekers, and that Draco does actually kick broomstick tail
over the other teams (no disrespect to Cedric's memory intended). For
those people who may have objected to my making the Slytherin wins
against Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw both shut-outs, I've evened up the
numbers to give both houses the maximum number of points they could
have before the final. (Draco still provides MVP-like service to
Slytherin, so there.)

For the rest of you, who probably didn't care in the first place, I'll
shut up now.

Gwen (again)




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Fri Apr 26 20:30:36 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:30:36 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: If I had to choose between Ron and Draco...(was: Draco & broomsticks & lines)
In-Reply-To: <004501c1ed4d$8bbf0160$8bf54041@default>
References: <aabt27+3eou@eGroups.com> <004501c1ed4d$8bbf0160$8bf54041@default>
Message-ID: <67695800841.20020426133036@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38220



Hi,

Friday, April 26, 2002, 11:09:45 AM, Penny wrote:

> This suggests to me that: (a) Ron still has some lingering prejudice
> against werewolves, Lupin notwithstanding (and don't forget Ron doesn't
> get another opportunity to interact with Lupin after the Shrieking Shack
> scene.... and so we don't *know* that Ron does or will do fine with
> interacting with Lupin after it's confirmed that he is a werewolf), and
> (b) he doesn't think much of Hermione's thoughts about giants *or*
> werewolves *or* bigotry. 

Or maybe he just automatically has to be contrary to
whatever Hermione says at this point in his life <g>.

Oh, and concerning werewolfes (I'm not all that
knowledgeable about them), are they all safely going
somewhere during their "dangerous" phase, like Lupin?

I mean, even Lupin had his lapses, and while he, and any
other werewolves might later regret having bitten somebody,
it would be too late for the newest victim.

It isn't Lupin's fault that he became a werewolf, but I can
also understand other people's fear of them.

Ron is not perfect, and Harry is only *almost* perfect
(<g>), but then, who can claim to be totally without any
prejudice?

I don't think I would enjoy HP all that much, if all the
"good guys/gals" were completely, 100%, without fail
perfect, never a doubt.
Same for the "bad ones".

Anyway, if it came to a choice between Ron and Draco, I
wouldn't have any problems choosing.

While I think Draco might make some right choices in the
future, I don't like his personality at all at this point
and have my doubts that he would turn into a loyal friend
who would die for me ;)

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Apr 26 21:49:56 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:49:56 -0000
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound 
In-Reply-To: <19f.158b874.29fafeb6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aaci24+rcqv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38221

Geez.  You throw your support behind a perfectly good speculative 
theory with precious little basis in canon, and someone has to spoil 
the fun by, er, opening a book.  Foiled again!

***************

Ali can(n)onized:

> > Hagrid says:
> > 
> > "But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, 
> > Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's. Black 
> > argued, but in the end he gave in".
> > 

Eloise conceded:

> Excellent. Someone thought of looking up the canon whilst others of 
us 
> indulged in idle speculation! :-). 
> I still go with Arabella being Sirius' girlfriend though. And I bet 
James 
> took him to have a look (and a bit of Muggle teasing?), before they 
went to 
> have a good laugh at the Dursleys down the pub.

Wait!  Figg/Sirius isn't dead yet!  It can change!

OK.  Hagrid spilled the beans there.  That explains why Sirius knew 
that Harry was going to live with his aunt and uncle.  OK, OK.  (You 
know, Ali, we had this discussion before and no one cited that 
passage, which makes you a first-rate LOON -- League Of Obsessed 
Nitpickers.  Relax -- it's a *good* thing.)

Anyway, I'm still not buying that Sirius knows where the Dursleys 
live because of his friendship with James.  First of all, Sirius is 
known to be James' friend, not Lily's friend.  I don't see why James 
and Sirius would discuss the specific whereabouts of James' 
girlfriend/wife/s estranged Squib/Muggle sister and her Muggle 
husband.  IIRC, Petunia and Vernon do not show up in any James/Lily 
wedding pictures.  Petunia and Vernon positively freak out at the 
mere mention of magic, so no way do they meet Sirius at the wedding 
and chat him up, even revealing *where they live*!

So I think that in PoA Sirius has this one piece of information about 
Harry -- that he lives with his aunt and uncle and maybe, maybe the 
town.  When Sirius escapes, he contacts Arabella somehow, perhaps 
even visiting her. That is why Sirius turns up on Magnolia Crescent 
instead of Privet Drive -- he has just had a little meet and greet 
with Arabella.

Come on.  Let me have this theory.  Please?  'Cause I think Arabella 
is going to turn out to be Dead Sexy in OoP, and I need something to 
look forward to.

Cindy (convinced that Arabella and Mrs. Lestrange will all be Dead 
Sexy in Harry's eyes)




From sgrunow at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 26 19:23:00 2002
From: sgrunow at hotmail.com (sgrunow1)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:23:00 -0000
Subject: Question: Hagrid's House
Message-ID: <aac9ek+mmek@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38222

Is there any canon evidence for which house Hagrid was in?  The 
lexicon puts him in Gryffindor, but where does this conclusion come 
from?

--sgrunow1





From alina at distantplace.net  Fri Apr 26 22:08:22 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:08:22 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question: Hagrid's House
References: <aac9ek+mmek@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009501c1ed6e$e1d1e7e0$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38223

Personally, I always thought he was a Hufflepuff. But I saw in a post from this group that apparently Rowling said in an interview he was a Gryffindor. 

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sgrunow1 
  To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 3:23 PM
  Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question: Hagrid's House


  Is there any canon evidence for which house Hagrid was in?  The 
  lexicon puts him in Gryffindor, but where does this conclusion come 
  from?

  --sgrunow1


  ---
  Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
  Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/2002


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 26 19:33:45 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:33:45 -0000
Subject: Snape Evil?/ PP's bravery/Harry's unpermitted Hogsmeade
Message-ID: <aaca2p+gk0n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38224

Snape... Yes, he *does* have a potential for being Evil one. The Evil 
disguising it as Good in front of Dumbledore. Snape's the one 
following the *one* rule - Don't lose your face... Considers caring 
as a weakness, honesty as stupid or impolite, gives attention to 
rules when they benefit him and neglects to do it when not...

However, Dumbledore is the *core* of goodness. Having a phoenix as a 
pet, listening and caring for everyone, acting for Right etc. 
Dumbledore is *not* evil. For some reason he trusts Snape. This is 
the *single* arguement against Snape-is-evil. But, Dumbledore's 
truste? has ended up as evil before, in the very first book.

********

That we can counter with being Neville's worst fear: *obviously* has 
something to do with the Cruciatus put on Neville's parents. 
Neville's courage is in his silent suffering, being *good* and 
expecting others to do the same. In a way, that requires more courage 
than anything Harry has done.

I agree that cutting his own hand with a knife *is* terribly brave. I 
couldn't do that if my life depended on it. He's simply doing it for 
the *wrong* reasons. Voldemort *needs* him to get stronger. PP could 
*easily* take his Wand, kill off Nadine-- and is under no threat.

*******

Now... it's not exactly about rules requiring permission from 
parent/guardian - just that such a rule can not apply if there is no 
valid guardian. McGonagall doesn't know the situation, but she even 
refuses to find out! She's staring at the letter of the law, rather 
than it's spirit. Interpreted that strictly, by the letter, it *is* 
discriminating to orphaned, lonely children who have no adult caring 
for them. Having no caring adult in itself is hard enough. It's not 
fair, not just and not right because it's discriminating.

If it *was* about Sirius Black being around, *no* one would be going. 
There just wouldn't have been any parental-permission-forms at all.
Special needs... That's what the caring guardian/parent is for. But 
if there isn't one - it's to be interpreted for the benefit of the 
child.

As it was... Sirius dealt with Harry's lack of guardian by becoming 
one. So Harry was lucky - but what of some other kid, not that lucky -
 in similar situation? A teenager being Extrasensitive on top of the 
obvious unfairness, lack of any emotional support from anyone...

-- Finwitch





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 26 22:10:51 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:10:51 -0000
Subject: Ron and Harry as Seers
Message-ID: <aacj9b+b2oq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38225

I working on a fanfic for a possible summer session and would 
appreciate feedback.

I'm rereading Goblet of Fire Ch. 13 & 14 about Harry and Ron's extra 
homework after the 'Uranus' joke. (I read a few posts earlier about 
Ron and Harry being seers, but couldn't find the posts today) In 
homework for 'A detailed analysis of the way planatary movements in 
the coming month will affect you'. Ron suggests the 'divination 
standby' and says  to 'put in loads of misery, she'll (Tralawney)lap 
it up!"

In the course of 'making up' predictions, Harry and Ron have danger 
of being burned, lose a treasured possession, get stabbed in the back 
by a friend, come off worse in a fight' As they finished predictions 
for a month, Hermione has them in dangers of drowning twice. AND BY 
THE END OF GofF, almost all those come true!

I'm wondering what all of the left out predictions were. Possibly the 
return of an escaped convict(Sirius), the rise of Voldemort, the 
betrayal by a trusted teacher (aimed at Snape but realized in Moody), 
and maybe even something unbelievable at the time of Harry winning 
the Triwizard Tournament and the prize money going to Ron's family.

My FanFic has Hogwarts calling a summer session after GofF with 
McGonagall's cover story of preparing for OWL's but actually to skill 
everyone in DADA for the coming battle. So far I have Nevile doing 
special work in Herbology and at a crucial point in the battle he 
might trap a Deatheater in the greenhouse and knock them out by 
depotting an immature mandrake. 

I have Krum coming to Hogwarts as a new Quidditch coach. (Harry and 
Dumbledore testified on his innocence concerning Karkaroff and his 
use of Crucio). Krum would be training all houses in levels of jr 
varsity and developing a school team for interschool competition with 
Durnstrang, Beauxbaton, and possibly other schools.

The new DADA teacher, Arabella Figg, trains the HRH trio as well as 
Ginny and Neville in Patronus and a few other needed charms. (After 
stunning Harry into speechlessness when he discovers his babysitter, 
the old lady with all the cats, was a high-level witch!)

Snape and Hagrid are away on private missions, but Figg teachs a 
short seminar on potions in addition to DADA. She helps some of the 
Griffindor's (Ron and Neville) improve so much that Snape has to 
rethink his teaching methods. A seminar on Care of Magical Creatures 
with a stress on exotic creatures is presented by a visiting half-
Veela teacher's assistant. 

I have Ginny doing divination work after dreams of rats and Sirius 
Black (they still haven't told her about Scabbers) Worse, Tralawney 
brings out Harry and Rons faked & forgotten homework as evidence that 
they are true seers and convinces Dumbledore that both should have 
extra training with them. As Ron wants desperately to play Quiditch 
AND spend tine with Fleur and now finds himself with as many classes 
as Hermione.

So feedback? 
Uncmark




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Apr 26 22:11:00 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:11:00 -0000
Subject: How will Battle commence?
In-Reply-To: <aac6in+m7m2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aacj9k+2p5e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38226

The Grey Wolf wrote:
> 
> Non-possibility A:
> What I really don't believe it will happen is an all-out war. There 
> just isn't enough people to form an army, and a wizard war 
would be too  destructive and alarm-raising. Even Voldemort 
knows they cannot reveal  themselves to muggles, they'd be 
swarmed over with little or no  difficulty (we muggles have guns. 
Better than AK, anytime). Except if some other listee comes with 
some idea to support the army war, I think  it will be a terrorism 
war in any of it's multiple forms, with no  actual face-to-face 
confrontations except at a very small scale.<<<<

As I understand things, terrorist insurgencies aim to radicalize 
the populace. They want to provoke those in power to take 
drastic action, which will inevitably harm innocent people, who 
will then join the terrorist cause. Terrorists are nihilists: they may 
dream of victory but they don't really care, they just want to bring 
the violence home, to quote a slogan from the radicals of my 
youth.

 Voldemort got the Ministry to authorize the use of The 
Unforgiveables. If things had gone on, I'm sure there would have 
been pressure on the Ministry to use the Dark Arts as well. We 
may see this in the remaining books. As far as  revealing the 
wizarding world to Muggles, I think that is exactly what Voldemort 
wants. He certainly doesn't seem at all concerned about 
maintaining wizarding secrecy.  IMO, his aim is all-out 
Muggle/Wizard war, with the hope of exterminating or enslaving 
every Muggle on earth. Thus his quest for immortality, so that 
wizards can survive without relying on Muggle mates.

Victory may be beyond his grasp but it may not look that way to 
him. I have a feeling guns wouldn't be much use against 
Dementors. Muggles can't see them, but are affected by them. 
And how many bullets does it take to kill an armored giant? Can  
a Parselmouth control dragons? They would be devastating 
weapons. Dumbledore and co. will certainly try to prevent things 
from getting that far, but will they succeed, or will the ultimate 
victory of the Light Side entail massive memory charms? 

If Voldemort can persuade the Dementors to join him then he 
will have a ready-made fortress/headquarters at Azkaban from 
which to launch his attacks, invisible to Muggles and guarded 
from Wizards as well.  How he is to be dislodged from it and 
vanquished I have no idea, though I am pretty sure that Godric's 
sword is going to come in handy. 

> 
> Grey Wolf, a bit peeved at the fact that only he seems to be 
waiting  until Monday to discuss elf rigths.

I'm waiting, I'm waiting !

Pippin




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Fri Apr 26 22:12:32 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:12:32 -0000
Subject: Question: Hagrid's House
In-Reply-To: <aac9ek+mmek@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aacjcg+i3v6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38227

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sgrunow1" <sgrunow at h...> wrote:
> Is there any canon evidence for which house Hagrid was in?  The 
> lexicon puts him in Gryffindor, but where does this conclusion come 
> from?
> 
> --sgrunow1

IIRC, the information comes from a JKR interview. If you're really 
interested, check Aberfoth's goat webpage:
http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/

Most of the interviews made to JKR can be found there and there is a 
search system. Look up "Hagrid" and "house" and you'll probably find 
what you're looking for

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Fri Apr 26 20:32:49 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:32:49 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] prejudice in the WW (was: If I had to choose...)
Message-ID: <PCGEOKIOIDLNAAAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38228

Hi, here's my two knuts.

Penny quoted then said:
>**************
>
>"Well, I thought he must be," she [Hermione] said, shrugging, "I knew he couldn't be pure giant, because they're about twenty feet tall.  But honestly, all this hysteria about giants.  They can't all be horrible...it's the same sort of prejudice that people have towards werewolves...it's just bigotry, isn't it?"
>
>Ron looked as though he would have liked to reply scathingly, but perhaps he didn't want another row, because he contented himself with shaking his head disbelievingly while Hermione wasn't looking.
>
>***********************
>This suggests to me that: (a) Ron still has some lingering prejudice against werewolves, Lupin notwithstanding (and don't forget Ron doesn't get another opportunity to interact with Lupin after the Shrieking Shack scene.... and so we don't *know* that Ron does or will do fine with interacting with Lupin after it's confirmed that he is a werewolf), and (b) he doesn't think much of Hermione's thoughts about giants *or* werewolves *or* bigotry.<  

I think that Ron rightly has lingering prejudices against werewolves, and I also think that he doesn't believe in Hermione's thoughts on magical creatures esp. giants and werewolves.  I don't think that Ron's really a bigot, though he has some of the prejudices that seem common to people raised in the wizarding world.  

The interesting thing I find about discussion of prejudice against magical creatures such as werewolves, giants, and house elves is that it seems to be something that people raised in the wizarding world take for granted while those raised in the Muggle world have other views.  For example Ron, the twins, Hagrid hold less than positive views of certain magical creatures while Hermione is usually in their favour and Harry seems to generally reserve judgement.  

>Heidi said: I also think, in degrees, that Ron's been mean and destructive and certainly prejudiced ("Get away from me, werewolf!"; house elves like work; giants are "not very nice".)<

Growing up, H&H would have thought all of the magical creatures were make believe (and probably evil if you think about stories about  werewolves and giants) while the others grew up in an environment where they ~are~ real and have proven to be dangerous in the past.  Sure there are exceptions -- there'd be no Hagrid if there weren't, but when you spend your entire life believing one thing, it's hard to stop without proof to the contrary.

I believe that Ron is basically a logical person at heart.  If he has enough positive interactions with giants or werewolves he will change his opinion, othewise I see him making exceptions for Hagrid and Lupin etc. but not for the general population.  

As for Ron's reaction to Lupin, in all honesty, can you blame him?   ~Ron~ doesn't know that there's a potion that makes Lupin safe from killing indiscriminantly, and it ~does~ happens to be a full moon out -- I'd be scared if I suddenly had the information that my favourite teacher was a werewolf sprung on me like that when I was already in pain from a broken leg and cornered by a wanted murderer -- think about what had led up to the declaration "Get away from me, werewolf!".  Talk about stress.

Now, I'll admit that judging people, or a species in this case, by reputation is a form of prejudice, but how is Ron to know any better?  Werewolves always kill people or turn them into werewolves -- Lupin is the exception to the rule, and only if he takes the potion.  No matter what Lupin in human form thinks, if he were to transform without the potion then he ~would~ kill them all without thinking about it.  The fear is justified, but I think that Ron would be open to trusting Lupin ~except~ at times of the full moon once he had the chance to think about it and if the next time they meet they interact well. 

Concerning the giants, it would be have to be hard for people who lived through Voldemort's first reign of terror to have a positive attitude towards them, and that prejudice would be passed onto their children.  After all, in the earlier struggles against Voldemort, the giants joined ~Voldemort's~ side.  I'll admit that this was most likely caused by prejudice but it becomes a vicious circle -- "we fear and hate you because your reputation says you're deadly" "We joined the enemy because you hate us" "you joined the enemy so we hate you" "You hate us so we'll hurt you" "We fear you because you're dangerous. . ." and so it continues.  The only way for it to stop is to encounter enough exceptions to the rule, or have someone from outside, like Hermione, step in and break the circle of prejudice.

The issue of the house elves, however, is something else entirely and I won't say much other than who's fault is it really?  The wizards who use the house elves like slaves, or the house elves who are content to be slaves (with the notable exception of Dobby who is shunned by his fellows)?. If a law came in saying that all house elves were to be released and paid for their services most of them, judging by the reaction at Hogwarts, would be utterly humiliated and probably pine away like Winky.  Is this really saving them?  I think that until the house elves ~want~ freedom and payment it's pretty pointless to do anything but let them work as they choose.  You have to ~want~ to be saved in order to be saved.

Well, I think that I got a bit further off topic then I'd planned but oh well.

---
--Hana




See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From emmbp at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 26 20:37:50 2002
From: emmbp at yahoo.com (emmbp)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:37:50 -0000
Subject: request for acronym - missing Weasley child
In-Reply-To: <AKELJIAAIHFIEHOGCIBLOEBKCJAA.lmccabe@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <aacdqu+6stc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38229

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Linda C. McCabe" <lmccabe at s...> wrote:
> 
> This is a call to Tabouli and/or Grey Wolf for an acronym to one of 
my pet
> theories.  The one with the slightly obscured alphabetic naming 
scheme to
> hide a missing Weasley son which would make Ron a seventh son and 
have
> latent psychic powers which would allow him to flourish outside the 
shadows
> of his brothers and Harry.


How about A.N.S.W.E.R.S.  (Abandoned Naming Scheme: Weasly's 
Enigmatic Ron a Seer)

It would make sense if Ron were a seer, We really haven't seen Ron be 
good at much else.  He makes a good side kick, but Hermione is a 
great student, very clever, etc.  Ron needs some special power, 
because you know, he is just as cool as Harry, and he and his family 
have had some a central part.  It would be a poetic injustice, if 
Good Ol' Ron Weasly were just a run of the mill, common wizard.

Sorry Tabouli and/or Grey Wolf for butting in so abruptly...  Maybe 
you need a small time Acronym maker for your service... :)

May you live in interesting times!
Brady





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Fri Apr 26 22:38:07 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:38:07 -0000
Subject: How will Battle commence?
In-Reply-To: <aacj9k+2p5e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aacksf+luig@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38230

Pippin wrote:
> As I understand things, terrorist insurgencies aim to radicalize 
> the populace. They want to provoke those in power to take 
> drastic action, which will inevitably harm innocent people, who 
> will then join the terrorist cause. Terrorists are nihilists: they 
> may dream of victory but they don't really care, they just want to 
> bring the violence home, to quote a slogan from the radicals of my 
> youth.

Sometimes, it's not even that. I have long suspected that the 
terrorists opperating at my own country continue to kill and put bombs 
because it's the only way of having a "job". They have spent their 
entire lives scaring people into giving them money, and they're 
unskilled at everything else. Of course, it also fills their need to be 
noticed, like all egomaniacs. The fact that they're "ideals" make no 
sense, however, hasn't reached them yet.

> Voldemort got the Ministry to authorize the use of The 
> Unforgiveables. If things had gone on, I'm sure there would have 
> been pressure on the Ministry to use the Dark Arts as well. We 
> may see this in the remaining books. As far as  revealing the 
> wizarding world to Muggles, I think that is exactly what Voldemort 
> wants. He certainly doesn't seem at all concerned about 
> maintaining wizarding secrecy.  IMO, his aim is all-out 
> Muggle/Wizard war, with the hope of exterminating or enslaving 
> every Muggle on earth. Thus his quest for immortality, so that 
> wizards can survive without relying on Muggle mates.
> 
> Victory may be beyond his grasp but it may not look that way to 
> him. I have a feeling guns wouldn't be much use against 
> Dementors. Muggles can't see them, but are affected by them. 
> And how many bullets does it take to kill an armored giant? Can  
> a Parselmouth control dragons? They would be devastating 
> weapons. Dumbledore and co. will certainly try to prevent things 
> from getting that far, but will they succeed, or will the ultimate 
> victory of the Light Side entail massive memory charms? 

Note: What I am about to say is a ripp-off from Vampire The Masquerade. 
Don't bother in telling me so, I already know.

The fact is that, except maybe Dementors, the wizard world would be 
overrun in a matter of days if it was to declare war on the muggle 
world. Let's check the numbers (and in a war, numbers id the only thing 
that matters). Aproximate world wizard population: 100 million (and 
even that is exagerating). Muggle world: over 6000 million. Muggles 
have guns, missiles, flamethrowers, chemical weapons, tanks, and a very 
long etc. Wizards have "gas explosions" (Peter's explosion) and AK, 
which has to be aimed and still kills only one. A giant can be killed 
easily, with a tank (and there are many more tanks than giants). 
Dragons facing missiles, bombers and jets? I give them 10 minutes. 
Muggles are too many, and have too many weapons. The only solution is 
to have them unaware, and if Voldemort doesn't realise this, he'll be 
soon destroyed (he may be inmortal, but a granade will blast him to 
pieces he likes it or not). Only dementors would be dangerous, but, in 
a war, they would quickly run out of food. Then again, maybe not, but 
if muggles have survived to this day with them around, they can 
continue to do so.

> If Voldemort can persuade the Dementors to join him then he 
> will have a ready-made fortress/headquarters at Azkaban from 
> which to launch his attacks, invisible to Muggles and guarded 
> from Wizards as well.  How he is to be dislodged from it and 
> vanquished I have no idea, though I am pretty sure that Godric's 
> sword is going to come in handy. 
> 
> Pippin


That would be an interesting end for the books: a major amphibian 
operation against Azkaban with all the good characters in the book. A 
pity is just too film-ish.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From alina at distantplace.net  Fri Apr 26 22:41:16 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:41:16 -0400
Subject: Ginny's name
Message-ID: <00b901c1ed73$7ac16080$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38231

There were some debates on this list as to Ginny's name. I think the three most popular versions are Virginia, Regina and Guinevere. According to the movie credits for Harry Potter And the Chamber Of Secrets (the movie) the character is listed as Virginia "Ginny" Weasely. Considering that Rowling is supervising the movie productions, can we assume that as canon evidence to the fact that the full name is indeed Virginia?

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/2002


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Fri Apr 26 22:48:14 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:48:14 -0000
Subject: Ginny's name
In-Reply-To: <00b901c1ed73$7ac16080$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <aaclfe+li5c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38232

Alina wrote:
> There were some debates on this list as to Ginny's name. I think the three most popular versions are Virginia, Regina and Guinevere. According to the movie credits for Harry Potter And the Chamber Of Secrets (the movie) the character is listed as Virginia "Ginny" Weasely. Considering that Rowling is supervising the movie productions, can we assume that as canon evidence to the fact that the full name is indeed Virginia?
> 
> Alina of Distant Place
> http://www.distantplace.net/
> "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails

I like this little piece of canon, even if based on 
the-celluloid-thingy-which-must-not-be-named. Alina I think you should 
probably submit this to the Lexicon. Even if it's not 100% canon, it's 
as close as we're going to get in quite some time (at least until the 
next online interview with JKR, where we ould introduce the question 
directly: What are the full names of the Weasley's brothers/sister?)

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From nobradors at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 26 20:28:58 2002
From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:28:58 -0000
Subject: transfer students
In-Reply-To: <aac3t5+li1t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aacdaa+a6ia@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38233

Grey Wolf wrote:

> JKR was heavily pressed by movie directors and publishers to 
include an 
> "American transfer student" in Hogwarts, because they felt it would 
> make the books more attractive to American children (that was way 
back, 
> when she started to be famous). JKR, obviously, put her foot down 
with 
> her characteristic strenght, and no transfer students have been 
> included. 

Is this true?! Bloody businessmen! Good literature is obviously not 
in their vocabulary... I know *I* would stand up to any "more-
attractive-to-whatever-market" suggestion they made me about MY 
story. 

>I probably expressed the idea the wrong way: JKR does not say 
> she hates transfer students in general, only she doesn't want 
>transfer 
> students in Hogwarts at this particular time, 

Or we could rather say, what she doesn't want is *to be told* to take 
a foreign student ;-)

Nuri
(Who would have LOVED to have a transfer student back in school days)





From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 27 00:52:42 2002
From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 00:52:42 -0000
Subject: Question: Hagrid's House
In-Reply-To: <aacjcg+i3v6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aacsoq+suvq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38234

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sgrunow1" <sgrunow at h...> wrote:
> > Is there any canon evidence for which house Hagrid was in?  The 
> > lexicon puts him in Gryffindor, but where does this conclusion 
come 
> > from?
> > 
> > --sgrunow1

If you'd looked Hagrid up in the Lexicon, you would have discovered 
an entire page about him:
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/hagrid.html

On that page, you will find this mention of his house:
House: Gryffindor (BN)

That (BN) is the reference to where that fact is found. In this 
case, it refers to the Barnes and Noble interview from October of 
2000. More information about that source and the other sources for 
Lexicon information can be found here:
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/site_sources.html
There is a link there to a transcript of the interview.

Generally speaking, if you find a detail in the Lexicon which you 
wonder about, look for the reference. Everything in the Lexicon is 
from either the books or from interviews with the author, so if it's 
in there, you be pretty confident that it's correct. Of course, 
errors do creep in here and there and I am constantly editing and 
expanding, but basically, if it's in the Lexicon, it's canon.

Steve Vander Ark
The Lexicon






From nobradors at hotmail.com  Sat Apr 27 01:04:53 2002
From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 01:04:53 -0000
Subject: prejudice in the WW (was: If I had to choose...)
In-Reply-To: <PCGEOKIOIDLNAAAA@mailcity.com>
Message-ID: <aactfl+ohdv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38235

Hana quoted:
> >This suggests to me that: (a) Ron still has some lingering 
>prejudice against werewolves, Lupin notwithstanding (and don't 
>forget Ron doesn't get another opportunity to interact with Lupin 
>after the Shrieking Shack scene.... and so we don't *know* that Ron 
>does or will do fine with interacting with Lupin after it's 
>confirmed that he is a werewolf), 
Then said:
>I'd be scared if I suddenly had the information that my favourite 
>teacher was a werewolf sprung on me like that when I was already in 
>pain from a broken leg and cornered by a wanted murderer -- think 
>about what had led up to the declaration "Get away from me, 
>werewolf!".  Talk about stress.

It's perfectly logical that Ron shoputs at Lupin in the Shrieking 
Shack - Regarding the first quote, however: When they leave towards 
Hogwarts, one of Wormtail's hands is handcuffed to Ron... and the 
other to Lupin! Would you accept to be tied-to-someone-who's-tied-to-
a-werewolf if you aren't confident that the werewolf won't harm you? 
I don't think so... So I believe Ron was in shock when first 
confronted to Lupin's nature, but holds no grudge or prejudice 
against him once he finds remus is really a good guy the remaining 27 
days of the moon cicle!

Hana: 
> Growing up, H&H would have thought all of the magical creatures 
>were make believe (and probably evil if you think about stories 
>about  werewolves and giants) while the others grew up in an 
>environment where they ~are~ real and have proven to be dangerous in 
>the past.  Sure there are exceptions -- there'd be no Hagrid if 
>there weren't, but when you spend your entire life believing one 
>thing, it's hard to stop without proof to the contrary.

You've got a point here. You really do. We have Cho who's probably 
got asian treats and Angelina who's black, and there's no evidence in 
canon that they're treated differently. The concept of *what* is 
different in the WW may be very far from our own muggle view.

Hana quoted:
> >Heidi said: I also think, in degrees, that Ron's been mean and 
>destructive and certainly prejudiced ("Get away from me, werewolf!"; 
>house elves like work; giants are "not very nice".)<

I disagree. Let's be honest. I consider myself a totally anty-bigotry 
person, but we all are prejudiced in some way. The difference is that 
a bigot will not give the "different" one a chance to prove their 
prejudice wrong, while an open-minded person who meets someone of a 
certain group he/she's not very fond of, will be nice to that someone 
and will give them the chance to get to know them. 
Also, the Weasleys are adorable but they're not a very classy family 
(remember Molly reads... Lockhart! and Skeeter!) so it's not unlikely 
that Ron has been hearing those generalizations about magical 
creatures all his life. 

Cheers

Nuri 

(Anyone knows of any upcoming chat with JKR? I don't go online 
everyday so if the date's near please email me privately? Thank you!)





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sat Apr 27 03:42:09 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 13:42:09 +1000
Subject: SHIP: Snape the VAMPISH TRICKSTER, Ron as 7th son
Message-ID: <006f01c1ed9d$a1209500$7b2adccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 38236

Dawn breaks over the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, and a single golden sunbeam pierces the porthole, illuminating the MAGIC (Magnificent Acronym Generating Intelligent Computer) machine in the corner of her cabin.  Captain Tabouli smiles peacefully, and is just about to roll over and go back to sleep when she hears a familiar, sinister voice hissing at the door.

Cindy:
>We need an acronym -- a really long, impossible-to-remember acronym.

There is a soft slithering noise, and a note appears under the door.  Rubbing her eyes wearily, the Captain stumbles to the door and picks it up.  It is scattered with bloodstained owl feathers.  The Captain brushes these away and tries to focus on what appears to be a list of evidence that Snape is Ever So Evil.  As she muses, a second note slips under the door.

Eloise:
>Of course he wanted to save the Stone from Voldemort. He 
didn't want Voldemort to be immortal. He instead played a waiting game, 
waiting just like Voldemort for the right moment, the moment when Voldemort 
would be strong enough to regain his body and then aids the process by 
providing the recipe (at least) of a potion which contains the fatal flaw 
which will allow his downfall - Harry's blood. Is it a coincidence, I ask 
myself, that Snape is an expert in the very field which restores Voldemort to 
his body?<

Chilled, Captain Tabouli considers this.

All in all, she muses, Snape's actions have been very... conflicting.  It's clear that he hates Harry, yet he saved him from death at the hands of Quirrell, Voldemort's servant.  He learned truckloads of curses as a small boy, and joined Voldemort as a young man, revelling in the torture of innocent people, yet then he *apparently* swapped sides and turned spy for Dumbledore - or so Dumbledore announced at Karkaroff's trial in front of hundreds of wizards - and from his reaction to Fake Moody's insinuation in GoF, appears to value the trust Dumbledore puts in him.  He relishes bullying and intimidating his students, yet he secretly looks after them behind the scenes, even after they've knocked him unconscious.  Lucius Malfoy is in Voldemort's inner circle, and therefore technically now Snape's enemy, yet he fawns on and favours Lucius' son.  Snape clearly does not care whether people like him, yet he seems to crave the honour of an Order of Merlin.

Could it be that instead of negotiating conflicting loyalties between his honourable soul and vindictive nature, Snape's behaviour reflects that he is pursuing his own, obscure, and yet unmistakeably sinister agenda, and has convinced not only Dumbledore, but Fudge and Voldemort that he is actually working in their interests?  Is he saving Harry up for use as a secret weapon against Voldemort?  Does he value Dumbledore's trust because Dumbledore, of all people, is the one he most needs to keep fooled?  Does he bully Neville because Neville alone has residual toddler memories of the Truth about Snape?  Does he favour Draco because he is secretly colluding with Lucius Malfoy to take over first the Death Eaters, and then the world? Is he just seducing everyone into a sense of false security, convincing everyone he's their ally, in preparation for the devastating revolution to come? Oooo, the V.A.M.P.I.S.H. T.R.I.C.K.S.T.E.R... (Voldemort's A Mere Pawn In Snape's Hands.  The Really Iniquitous Crime King's Snape, The Evil Reprobate!)

Pleased with her morning's work, the Captain files away her new acronym and heads for the deck.  Just as she has settled into her favorite deck chair to eat her breakfast and watch the sun play on Theory Bay, her cabin boy whispers news of a terrible slander in her ear:

Caroline and husband:
> Snape's hatred of Harry doesn't have anything to do with LOLLIPOPS 
> (too soft for a guy like Snape, in my husband's opinion.)

Soft?  SOFT???

A roar shakes the rigging as Captain Tabouli rises, scattering and shattering the components of her breakfast.  SOFT??  What is the meaning of this?  Is this man implying that Snape is too tough a guy to succumb to romance?  Too hard?  Too cool and calculating and nasty, too MACHO to fall victim to Cupid's arrow?

Two burly crew members restrain the roaring captain, while the deck hands timidly sweep up the mess.

Ha!  snarls the Captain, quivering with indignation.  Snape, a Lone Ranger Macho Man With No Emotions?  He goes into poetic torrents over a pot full of rat spleens!  He bullies 11 year old children!  Despite being a senior teacher and professional adult, he can't restrain himself from blistering stares at Harry, allegedly because Harry's dad was better than him at Quidditch and rescued him at school!  He *totally* loses his cool in PoA and lets a few kids turn him into a shaking, screeching mess!!  He gloats, he sneers, he glares witheringly, he looks like he wants to strangle people, he grips the back of chairs when Ginny is taken into the Chamber, he gets all upset when Fake Moody implies that Dumbledore shouldn't trust him...

...Snape is a *very* emotional man.  A passionate man.  He's passionate about his discipline, he's passionate about his likes and dislikes, he's passionate about his grudges.  He's even pale with greasy dark hair and dresses in swirling black cloaks!  The man is practically a Goth romantic!  He has more than enough emotions to fall in love and be extremely passionate and tortured about it.  And, judging by his ability to hold grudges unto the second generation even when the original culprit is dead, capable of letting that passion torture him long after she has died.

Nope, nope, won't budge on this one.  Snape is an *ideal* candidate for a tortured romance.  And, when you consider what he would have gone through if he did indeed love Lily, it's not soft at all.  In fact, the bitterness of what has happened ever since the fateful Potions class where he fell for her is most likely part of what turned him so hard...


Ama:
> Unfortunately, my own theorylet "S.N.A.P.E.C.L.I.F.F."
(Swarthy Nursling Abuses Potter jr., Enraged he Caused
Lilly's Immolation; will Fester Forever) never left
the harbour.  Perhaps Captain Tabouli needs some extra
ballast for the H.M.S. Lollipops, in which case
S.N.A.P.E.C.L.I.F.F. is ready to be of service!<

Calming down at last, Captain Tabouli returns to the remains of her breakfast, and is just about to order a second breakfast when a black cloaked figure swirls into view.  The hood falls back to reveal a face contorted with anguish.  With a sweeping, tragic gesture, the figure flourishes an acronym, SNAPECLIFF, in her face, before hurling itself against the mast with a howl of pain.  There are several sprigs of what appear to be heather caught on the cloak.

The Captain is taken aback, but reminds herself of her welcoming, inclusive nature and kindly offers the cloaked figure a cup of tea and a bleak, windswept room near the stern of the ship, offering grim views of the dying theories who float sadly in the wake of LOLLIPOPS...

Athena:
> This is a call to Tabouli and/or Grey Wolf for an acronym to one of my pet
theories.  The one with the slightly obscured alphabetic naming scheme to
hide a missing Weasley son which would make Ron a seventh son and have
latent psychic powers which would allow him to flourish outside the shadows
of his brothers and Harry.<

Poor old Ron, eh?  It's just not fair.  Overshadowed by his brother, overshadowed by his best friends... what a:

W.A.N.T.O.N. M.O.R.A.S.S. O.F. T.O.S.H. (Weasleys Alphabetically Named Third Omitted Nipper, Making Our Ron A Seventh Son, Outstripping Fellows Through Oracular Secrets Harboured)


Grey Wolf (quoting Felicia):
>> a more vengeful version of L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. (see
>> Tabouliani for in depth explanations and discussions).
>
>Note: the name is "Tabouli". Haven't the faintiest of what it means, 
though. I remember because it reminds me of a continent in a fantasy 
book.<

Ah.  I think Felicia meant to say "Tabouliana", her personal term for the output of my keyboard.  As for "Tabouli" itself, as I once recounted on OT, this is my favorite spelling of a Middle Eastern salad whose main ingredients, according to my Mediterranean cookbook, are parsley, mint, bulgur wheat (?), and tomatoes.  Don't especially like the salad (also spelt tabbouleh, tabuli, various others), but I always liked the word...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Edblanning at aol.com  Sat Apr 27 12:09:13 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 08:09:13 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound
Message-ID: <146.d9d1b93.29fbeee9@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38237

Cindy:
> Anyway, I'm still not buying that Sirius knows where the Dursleys 
> live because of his friendship with James.  First of all, Sirius is 
> known to be James' friend, not Lily's friend.  I don't see why James 
> and Sirius would discuss the specific whereabouts of James' 
> girlfriend/wife/s estranged Squib/Muggle sister and her Muggle 
> husband.  IIRC, Petunia and Vernon do not show up in any James/Lily 
> wedding pictures.  Petunia and Vernon positively freak out at the 
> mere mention of magic, so no way do they meet Sirius at the wedding 
> 

No, of course not. But Lily probably knows, so James can know and what better 
sport for two jokers like those two than having a bit of fun at the Dursleys' 
expense? OTOH, you could be right, the info could have come from Arabella - 
providing he can find her first.

> 
> So I think that in PoA Sirius has this one piece of information about 
> Harry -- that he lives with his aunt and uncle and maybe, maybe the 
> town.  When Sirius escapes, he contacts Arabella somehow, perhaps 
> even visiting her. That is why Sirius turns up on Magnolia Crescent 
> instead of Privet Drive -- he has just had a little meet and greet 
> 

In which case (sorry to be boring and insert canon here), he was going in the 
wrong direction (or alternatively had gone too far) if he was intending to 
reach Harry. Arabella lives two streets from Privet Drive, whereas Harry was 
several streets away by the time he sat down in Magnolia Crescent.
We still have to explain how he knows where Arabella is, but as I've 
suggested, the hair donor, who may well *not* have turned her back on the WW, 
could be the source of that.

> 
> Come on.  Let me have this theory.  Please?  'Cause I think Arabella 
> is going to turn out to be Dead Sexy in OoP, and I need something to 
> look forward to.

But I don't think any of what I or anyone else has said actually disproves 
the theory that Arabella is Sirius' girlfriend. (You even quoted my support 
for the notion.) If she is Harry's godfather's girlfriend you could almost 
argue that she's the next best thing to family he has, making her protective 
role all the more explicable. There has to be a really good reason why 
someone would sacrifice their life in the WW in the way she has. 
I'm afraid it does make Dumbledore's use of her surname in his instructions 
to Sirius at the end of GoF rather redundant though (I'm sorry, these bits of 
canon will keep creeping in!). But perhaps this is just for the reader's 
benefit. Yes...that must be it. We can't get litle canonical nit-picks get in 
the way of a good theory, now, 
can we? :-)

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ecuamerican at hotmail.com  Sat Apr 27 03:10:56 2002
From: ecuamerican at hotmail.com (ecuman24)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 03:10:56 -0000
Subject: How will Battle commence?
In-Reply-To: <aacksf+luig@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aad4s0+p06c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38238

Grey Wolf writes
> 
> The fact is that, except maybe Dementors, the wizard world would be 
> overrun in a matter of days if it was to declare war on the muggle 
> world. Let's check the numbers (and in a war, numbers id the only 
thing 
> that matters). Aproximate world wizard population: 100 million (and 
> even that is exagerating). Muggle world: over 6000 million. Muggles 
> have guns, missiles, flamethrowers, chemical weapons, tanks, and a 
very 
> long etc. Wizards have "gas explosions" (Peter's explosion) and AK, 
> which has to be aimed and still kills only one. A giant can be 
killed 
> easily, with a tank (and there are many more tanks than giants). 
> Dragons facing missiles, bombers and jets? I give them 10 minutes. 
> Muggles are too many, and have too many weapons. The only solution 
is 
> to have them unaware, and if Voldemort doesn't realise this, he'll 
be 
> soon destroyed (he may be inmortal, but a granade will blast him to 
> pieces he likes it or not). 

I'm not really sure if there will be or can be an all out war between 
Muggles and Wizards.  But if there was to be such a thing, I fear 
that our Wizard companions have been **extremely** underestimated.

One word...Magic...period.  Our Wizards have magic powers.  You think 
guns outweigh wands?  While guns can do 1 thing, wands can do 
multiple upon multiple things.  Give me a wand, and I'll Expelliarmus 
your gun.  Shoot a missile at me and I can Summon it to slow down and 
go back to you.  Flamethrow me and I'll charm myself with that 
tickling charm that the witches used in the Witch Hunts.  Ride in 
with your tank and I'll fly in with my Ridgeback and sweep 3 of your 
steel steeds with my tail, and proceed to barbecue your army.  
Surround me with a platoon of your men and I'll Apparate somewhere 
else or freeze them still.  Planes and jets?  I'll turn them into 
paper airplanes.

The point is they would have a far better chance than earlier 
percieved.  Have our Marines been trained to deal with Order of 
Merlin Wizards??  We would be unprepared and so would the Wizarding 
World.  Numbers don't mean a thing when a powerful community such as 
our Wizards can be woken with a sudden wrath if they feel 
threatened.  If they need to defend themselves, they will do whatever 
is necessary.  But I don't believe anything like will ever happen.  I 
don't believe JKR will be able to write World War II tale.  I'm just 
shocked that some people believe that guns are still the only answer 
to the world's problems.

Earendil





From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com  Sat Apr 27 03:38:36 2002
From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:38:36 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How will Battle commence?
Message-ID: <IJCHPLAJEHCPAAAA@mailcity.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38239

Grey Wolf wrote:
>The fact is that, except maybe Dementors, the wizard world would be 
>overrun in a matter of days if it was to declare war on the muggle 
>world. Let's check the numbers (and in a war, numbers id the only thing 
>that matters). Aproximate world wizard population: 100 million (and 
>even that is exagerating). Muggle world: over 6000 million. Muggles 
>have guns, missiles, flamethrowers, chemical weapons, tanks, and a very 
>long etc. Wizards have "gas explosions" (Peter's explosion) and AK, 
>which has to be aimed and still kills only one. A giant can be killed 
>easily, with a tank (and there are many more tanks than giants). 
>Dragons facing missiles, bombers and jets? I give them 10 minutes. 
>Muggles are too many, and have too many weapons. >


This is all true but I think Voldemort would have a chance against the Muggle world if he played his cards properly.  There would be at least five main factors on Voldemort's side:

(a) Muggles don't believe in magic and he could kill a lot of people before anyone would take the threat of "Magical attacks" seriously, especially if he used the Dementors to do it.  Even with more obvious forms of magic being used he would still have an advantage.  After all, can you really imagine any major government proclaiming to the world that they were off to bomb the wizards?  They'd be laughed out of politics if they did that.  

(b) Who would they be attacking?  
        [i]Giants (if they side with Voldemort this time) are easy targets I guess, but then again Muggles don't know they exist so they must have something going for them.  
        [ii]Dragons are also easy targets, but they seem vicious enough that Voldemort would have to personally control them individually and I rather doubt he'd do that -- why risk himself against fighter planes etc?  
        [iii]Wizards themselves?  If they were dumb enough to gather in one place maybe there'd be a target ~if~ the Muggles could find it.  After all Azkaban is invisable, Hogwarts is somewhere hidden, the other magical schools are hidden even from wizards.  Since a lot of the wizarding world seems to be in/near/around the Muggle one (Diagon Alley etc) then that would mean bombing their own cities and towns and that would be helping Voldemort's cause more than harming it.
        [iv] The Dementors? A futile effort, especially since they can't be seen but can likely kill Muggles.

(c)How often do world governments actually work together? If Voldemort limited himself to Europe then maybe there would be some cooperation (~maybe~) but that would entail ~belief~ in the threat, Muggle truces, combining armies. . . .  It's possible -- both World Wars had some degree of cooperation but still. . .  Imagine he had DEs across the globe?  Can you really see ~all~ governments cooperating to be rid of the ~wizard~ threat?  Not likely -- at least half would probably blame it on their current enemies claiming it was some weird new technology and help Voldemort indirectly by killing more Muggles.

(d)Voldemort could make deals with power-hungry Muggles and Muggle governments to get ~them~ to help him defeat other Muggles.  Voldemort probably wouldn't do this, but if he truly wanted to take over the world he would, I mean look how easily Muggles fight Muggles as it is.  If he was smart he'd use them while letting them think they were using him.  A lot of disposable allies for him.

(e) Terror.  Muggles get paranoid and afraid of regular war technology, imagine if they couldn't see the threat or understand how to stop it?  Muggles would be just as fearful, if not more so than wizards are of the Dark Mark.  If wizards are afraid to say Voldemort's name I imagine it wouldn't take long before Muggles would be too.

Now on the other side of the argument, I don't really think Dumbledore would allow things to go that far.  I think that there are a variety of strategies he might employ himself:

(a) Offer to help Muggle governments.  If it became common knowledge that wizards existed so that there were too many Muggles to place memory charms on, I think that he would arrange to have OoP representatives go to various governments and offer to help them. He wouldn't really have a choice -- they would need some magical help if they hoped to win.  A lot of the problems with locating the enemy would be left to Aurors and other wizards who would help to guide the Muggles so that the Muggles could actually use their technology. 
 
(b) Arrange to have more Aurors found/hired or whatever happens to get them the job.

(c) Hopefully get the giants on his side, as well as any other intelligent magical creature who would be willing to help fight against Voldemort.  Magical creatures would likely make excellent spies and could add an entirely new dimension of abilities to the equation.

And now, in defense of Muggles, there are some advantages they would have and some things that they could do once they believed in the threat, especially if it turned out to be a protracted war of several years.

(a) Modify technology or try to blend it with magic to help locate wizards and magically shielded places.  I don't know how much technology can be blended with magic but I'm sure some interesting devices could be created.

(b) Train dogs to sniff out magic.  It sounds silly, but dogs can and have been trained to do a heck of a lot of stuff.  They've also been used a lot in war and make incredible assets that would likely be underestimated by Voldemort's side.  Having Animagi around to communicate with the dogs would make things even easier.

(c)Sheer persistence.  I'm sure wizards can be very persistent, but nothing beats a stubborn Muggle who's pissed off that you've killed/threatened his or her family.  The crazy things that have been done, especially in war, that should have failed but didn't are amazing.

(d) Underestimation of Muggle technology on the part of Voldemort's side.  Voldemort would probably try to have mostly pure blooded wizards on his side. Now, he couldn't have only pure bloods in the bulk of his army, but all the top wizards would be and if one thing has been made clear it's that people in the wizarding world are clueless about Muggle technology.  I can easily see them underestimating the power of guns (odd wands), explosives (nice putty), communication technology, television as a form of propaganda. . . the list goes on.  Voldemort would be at a disadvantage simply because he holds Muggles in contempt and wouldn't think them capable of harming him.

Dumbledore's side would have more of an advantage because they would have a lot of Muggle born wizards who understood what Muggle technology was capable of.  People like Hermione and Harry ~can't~ have forgotten everything about the first 11 years of their lives, and they are submersed in it every summer.

In the end, Voldemort could win a war against Muggles simply by taking them by surprise, terrorizing them, and not gathering anywhere that could make them an easy target (providing of course that he had enough wizards to do the job).  Whether he'd be able to hold his position of power for a protracted amount of time is another story. Muggles are really good at guerrilla warfare and he'd have a lot of trouble keeping them subdued unless he killed all/most of them off.  

He could also lose, depending on how quickly the threat was recognized and how quickly Dumbledore set up a truce with the Muggles to fight a common enemy as well as getting the Muggle governments to cooperate.

Now, having said all of this, I have to say that it's ~not~ a likely situation in the books because (a) it would take way more than three more books to write it all, (b) it wouldn't really be good material for a children's book (c) it would no longer focus just on wizards, and definitely not on Harry.

It would make a great plot for fanfiction however, and it was really fun to think about.


---
--Hana

I just realized that this is going to be a huge post.  ;| Sorry about that.


See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp 




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 27 12:37:50 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 12:37:50 -0000
Subject: transfer students
In-Reply-To: <aacdaa+a6ia@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aae62u+2t9f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38240

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nuriaobradors" <nobradors at h...> wrote:
> Grey Wolf wrote:
> 
> > JKR was heavily pressed by movie directors and publishers to 
> include an 
> > "American transfer student" in Hogwarts, because they felt it 
would 
> > make the books more attractive to American children (that was way 
> back, 
> > when she started to be famous). JKR, obviously, put her foot down 
> with 
> > her characteristic strenght, and no transfer students have been 
> > included.
 
 Nuri:

> Is this true?! Bloody businessmen! Good literature is obviously not 
> in their vocabulary... I know *I* would stand up to any "more-
> attractive-to-whatever-market" suggestion they made me about MY 
> story. 

Grey Wolf:

> >I probably expressed the idea the wrong way: JKR does not say 
> > she hates transfer students in general, only she doesn't want 
> >transfer 
> > students in Hogwarts at this particular time, 

Nuri:
 
> Or we could rather say, what she doesn't want is *to be told* to 
take 
> a foreign student ;-)

I don't think that being told what to do is any part of it. What JKR 
*wants* is that Harry Potter remains being the good story. Having a 
transfer-student included in a story just for the sake of having one 
simply isn't good storytelling! It's a matter of following 'kill-your-
darling' principle: An author might love an idea or a sentence, but 
if it doesn't fit in the story, it must go.

The purpose of details is to create atmosphere and to give 
foreshadowings. To show how things are instead of telling so...

-- Finwitch





From idp at skywalkers.org  Sat Apr 27 14:53:56 2002
From: idp at skywalkers.org (Ian Preston)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 15:53:56 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny's name
References: <00b901c1ed73$7ac16080$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <005701c1edfb$5cfbbae0$932b7bd5@dgn960j>

No: HPFGUIDX 38241

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alina" <alina at distantplace.net>
To: <HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:41 PM
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny's name


> There were some debates on this list as to Ginny's name. I think the three
most popular versions are Virginia, Regina and Guinevere. According to the
movie >credits for Harry Potter And the Chamber Of Secrets (the movie) the
character is listed as Virginia "Ginny" Weasely. Considering that Rowling is
supervising the >movie productions, can we assume that as canon evidence to
the fact that the full name is indeed Virginia?

Did you take that from the IMDB? If so, that's a user-maintained database,
in which anyone can send in information about the cast and crew of a movie.
In all likelyhood, someone just figured that the name Virginia was
canonical, and decided to submit it to IMDB.

Ian





From pennylin at swbell.net  Sat Apr 27 16:03:18 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 11:03:18 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] prejudice in the WW (was: If I had to choose...)
References: <PCGEOKIOIDLNAAAA@mailcity.com>
Message-ID: <014e01c1ee05$0c454d00$8bf54041@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 38242

Hi --

Hana said:

<<<I believe that Ron is basically a logical person at heart.  If he has enough positive interactions with giants or werewolves he will change his opinion, othewise I see him making exceptions for Hagrid and Lupin etc. but not for the general population.>>>

Actually, I'd say Ron is the opposite of logical.  He's very emotionally-driven in my mind.  It's Hermione who's logical, but they are opposites in their approaches to problems or situations IMO.  

Making exceptions for Hagrid and Lupin doesn't make him any less prejudiced though.  I think I made that point in some former iteration of this same debate ages ago, but I don't have time to search for it at the moment.  I think that Ron does make an exception for Hagrid pretty clearly.  And, someone mentioned that Ron was willingly shackled to Pettigrew with Lupin as they left the Shack.  This could be interpreted as meaning that he intended to leave behind his prejudices against werewolves *with respect to Lupin* OR it could mean simply that his sense of betrayal by Pettigrew was so great that he was willing to set aside his problems with Lupin for that limited purpose.  In any case though, I don't think Rowling will end up sending a message that it's okay to make individual exceptions but retain an overall sense of bigotry against an entire class of people.  I can't see her implicitly approving of this, so I think we might see more of Ron's struggle with these issues as it seems that he is the logical person to illustrate this type of point.

<<<As for Ron's reaction to Lupin, in all honesty, can you blame him?>>>

I'm not making a judgment so much as simply arguing that it seems to me that it's largely factual issue.  Ron *is* demonstrating prejudiced behavior against werewolves and giants and house elves when last we saw him in GoF.  

Penny  
(who wishes her computer hadn't eaten the rather lengthy response she was creating for several days on the HP as Classics thread ... trying desperately to recreate it before we turn to the next question on Monday)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Sat Apr 27 17:28:32 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 17:28:32 -0000
Subject: Bring Me To Life (filk)
Message-ID: <aaen40+peua@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38243

Bring Me To Life 

To the tune of the Beatles' Can't Buy Me Love

Here the original at:

http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/penny/31/beatles.html

Dedicated to GiNnY

Enter VOLDEMORT, as a disembodied spirit

VOLDEMORT
Bring me to li-ife, li-ife
Bring me to li-ife

Almost did that dying thing my friend 
As I sought eternal life 
But Lily's trick didn't bring my end
My experiments went right
But it meant I lost my body
Body I need for life

Segue to VOLDEMORT as a monstrous misshapen homunculus

Went to the Diagon blood bank
Said I needed blood of foe.
But they gave me a look so blank
"All we've got is A and O"
Though I don't care much for Harry
Harry's blood'll bring me life

Bring me to li-ife
With a slave, a dad and foe
It will mid-wi-ife
I'll grow, grow, grow!

Segue to VOLDEMORT,  stepping out from the cauldron in his new body

Pete Pettigrew mixed Voldy stew
This potion resurrects!
I'm ready for dark deeds anew
But I lack further text
Though I've got this great new body
Rowling won't bring us Five

Came back to li-ife
Ev'ry finger, ev'ry toe
But no Book Fi-ive
No, no, no, Jo!

Wanna free my team from Azkaban
Wanna upgrade my AK 
I've also got this crazy plan
How to ruin Harry's day 
But it ain't the least bit funny
Rowling won't give me Five

Won't give me Fi-ive, Fi-ive
Won't give me Fi-ive
Won't give me Fi-ive, Fi-ive
Won't give me Fi-ive



.

VOLDEMORT fall silent as he impatiently awaits ? with the rest of us -
 The Order of the Phoenix

  - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 





From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 27 17:37:57 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 17:37:57 -0000
Subject: prejudice in the WW (was: If I had to choose...)
In-Reply-To: <aactfl+ohdv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaenll+jiik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38244

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nuriaobradors" <nobradors at h...> wrote:
> Also, the Weasleys are adorable but they're not a very classy 
family 
> (remember Molly reads... Lockhart! and Skeeter!) so it's not 
unlikely 
> that Ron has been hearing those generalizations about magical 
> creatures all his life. 

Not a "classy family"?  I think you're treading on dangerous ground 
here. Your implication seems to be that the Weasley's, who must be 
a "common" family, since they're not "classy", don't know any better 
than to state prejudices that they don't even understand.

I find that offensive.

I would definitely assume the Malfoys are a "classy" family, and 
they're just as prejudiced, if not more so, than the Weasleys.

Z




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sat Apr 27 17:39:56 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 17:39:56 -0000
Subject: How will Battle commence?
In-Reply-To: <aad4s0+p06c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaenpc+50ml@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38245

Earendil wrote:
> 
> I'm not really sure if there will be or can be an all out war between 
> Muggles and Wizards.  But if there was to be such a thing, I fear 
> that our Wizard companions have been **extremely** underestimated.
> 
> One word...Magic...period.  Our Wizards have magic powers.  You think 
> guns outweigh wands?  While guns can do 1 thing, wands can do 
> multiple upon multiple things.  Give me a wand, and I'll Expelliarmus 
> your gun.  Shoot a missile at me and I can Summon it to slow down and 
> go back to you.  Flamethrow me and I'll charm myself with that 
> tickling charm that the witches used in the Witch Hunts.  Ride in 
> with your tank and I'll fly in with my Ridgeback and sweep 3 of your 
> steel steeds with my tail, and proceed to barbecue your army.  
> Surround me with a platoon of your men and I'll Apparate somewhere 
> else or freeze them still.  Planes and jets?  I'll turn them into 
> paper airplanes.

I have to say that you're overestimating magic. Magic, as all other 
forms of internal energy (like shooting arrows with bows or using a 
sword) can get very tiring in very short time. If you use AK a few 
times, except the most poweful, you're going to be panting quite 
heavily. I'd agree that, on equal numbers, an army of wizards could 
probably win over an army of muggles, but the fact is that wizards are 
so hopelessly undernumbered that they wouldn't stand a chance in an 
all-out battle (I do accept Hana's ideas about surprise, which is maybe 
all Voldemort would need, but I doubt even that would be enough). Allow 
me to explain:

You suggest expelliarming guns. If you expelliarmus, let's say, the 
guns of 20 soldiers you're facing, it takes about 2 minutes (allowing 
for 1 expelliarmus every 6 seconds, which is a very high rate). You'd 
be dead before you get to the end of the row, because in two minutes 
you have been emptied a full clip by everyone but the three first. Even 
if, by some previously casted shield (although I don't think any 
magical shield can stop a 800 km/hr bullet) you survive, you've 
depleated a good deal of energy. The soldiers get up, brush their 
clothes, pick up their weapons and no major harm done.

Missiles: we know almost for certain that summoning charms obey the 
thermodinamic laws. You cannot expect to stop a missile by summoning 
it: it's momentum is just too great. You don't see a missile coming, 
nevertheless (you're too busy expelliarming the soldier's weapons, or 
whatever). Jets and bombers rush through the battle, and attack from 
beyond eye-sight. A dragon may destroy one tank, but there are hundreds 
in each battle, and dragons are inmune to magic, not technology.

In conclussion: wizards, in open battle, don't have a chance. The only 
solution is to go for secrecy (and maybe, as Hana said, surprise, but 
even that would be nearly-suicide). They are just too few, and using 
magic takes too long as is too much energy-consuming when faced off 
with the weapons of mass destruction muggles have developed over the 
centuries (from the gun: one man has the power to kill six without 
effort to the atomic bomb).

> The point is they would have a far better chance than earlier 
> percieved.  Have our Marines been trained to deal with Order of 
> Merlin Wizards??  We would be unprepared and so would the Wizarding 
> World.  Numbers don't mean a thing when a powerful community such as 
> our Wizards can be woken with a sudden wrath if they feel 
> threatened.  If they need to defend themselves, they will do whatever 
> is necessary.  But I don't believe anything like will ever happen.  I 
> don't believe JKR will be able to write World War II tale.

And that's where the difference in our views lies: you believe that a 
single wizard can overrun an army. I believe that wizards would be more 
surprised at muggles capabilities than the other way round, and that 
5-to-1 against a wizard means he's lost.

 
> I'm just shocked that some people believe that guns are still the 
> only answer to the world's problems.
> 
> Earendil

I hope you're not pointing that comment in my direction. Wars have at 
times stopped conflicts, but have never solutioned any problem. War is 
the most stupid proffesion of humankind (and, against popular myth, 
it's the first one ever: before aything else, or simian ancestors where 
selecting rulers by the simple method of eliminating the competition).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Apr 27 18:03:30 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 18:03:30 -0000
Subject: Permission Slip / Karkaroff's Age / Elf Respect
Message-ID: <aaep5i+rpda@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38246

Nova wrote:

> I can't imagine a situation where a child without a signed 
> permission slip from a parent/guardian would be allowed to attend 
> any sort of trip outside school grounds. If something were to
> happen to him, they and Hogwarts would be held responsible.

That is VERY true in the USA Muggle world in which I live, but the UK 
Wizard world seems to be a LOT less litigious. In fact, a lot less 
bureaucratic. Students at Hogwarts mess with so many dangerous 
things: playing Quidditch, making potions that can explode if 
something goes wrong, proximity to the Forbidden Forest full of 
dangerous creatures, etc, that it is *amazing* to me that no student 
has been killed at Hogwarts since Myrtle, '50 years' ago. We have see 
no clue that the Dursleys had to sign a permission slip for Harry to 
play Quidditch, take Potions class, or take Care of Magical Creatures 
class, so it seems to be wizarding law (or wizarding custom, which I 
expect is more powerful than wizarding law) that Hogwarts (presumably 
as embodied in Headmaster) is recognized as the guardian of Hogwarts 
students. (I find it odd that Hogwarts requires permission slips for 
Hogsmeade outings but not for playing Quidditch.)

That would go along with the suggestion that someone made that 
Dumbledore is Harry's wizarding-world guardian, giving him the right 
to decide where Harry would live (with Dursleys) and to authorize 
money being taken from Harry's Gringotts vault for school expenses 
(and possibly for the Nimbus 2000). I agree that Dumbledore is 
Harry's wizarding world guardian, but suspect that the wizarding 
world doesn't have laws or legal hearings to decide who should be a 
child's guardian, but merely accepts whatever wizarding adult is 
acting in that position: ie that Dumbledore became Harry's guardian 
by picking him out from the ashes and making the arrangements for 
him. Either way, Dumbledore (and McGonagall as his delegate) would 
have the right to sign Harry's permission slip. 

Here in the USA Muggle world, even if the parent has signed a paper 
giving the school in loco parentis rights, the parent would sue the 
school if the student were killed on an outing, in sports, in class 
experiments, etc. In some cases the parents would win. I believe that 
in the wizarding world, the parents wouldn't even think of suing 
Hogwarts for their child being killed at school: they would either 
accept it as part of the tragic sense of life or they would seek 
PERSONAL vengeance on whichever adult they considered at fault. This 
is part of that parallel of wizarding world with 'Livian Rome' that 
some brilliant list member pointed out.

A digression: I wonder if the Lestranges had children, what happened 
to them when both parents were sent to Azkaban? Presumably if they 
had relatives, some relatives would have 'unofficially adopted' the 
children out of family duty, so MoM would not have had to get 
involved at all. Suppose there were no relatives left alive and out 
of Azkaban and no one willing to take in a convicted Death Eater's 
children -- would MoM have stepped in to find them a foster family, 
or simply left them to live or die on their own? 

Grey Wolf wrote:

> Anyway, can you believe I never considered Karkaroff as a 
> Hogwart's teacher? I picture him about Snape's age

Marina Rusalka wrote:

> I've always imagined Karkaroff as being in his mid-fifties or so --
> about half-way between Snape and McGonagall. Part of it is that 
> he's described as having white hair;

I never thought of Karkaroff being a Hogwarts student or teacher 
until I read it on this list, but I did think of him as being only a 
few years older than Snape, so that they could have become sort of 
friends and equals when they met in the Death Eaters. Having become 
Headmaster of Durmstrang so young would only have been evidence of 
his skill at conniving.

HOWEVER, that beard of his is white in GoF, altho' it was black in 
the Pensieve flashback. When we saw Dumbledore 100 years old in the 
CoS flashback, his hair and beard were still *auburn* (and he was not 
yet Headmaster). This argues for Karkaroff being at least 100 years 
old, to be a Headmaster and have a white beard. 

Athena wrote:

> Also that you should treat everyone with dignity and respect. Many 
> in the WW simply do not do that. For example, Amos Diggory's 
> questioning of Winky where he never once asked her what her name 
> was. He simply referred to her as "Elf."

I have often mentioned my theory that, in that scene, Arthur and Amos 
had fallen into the 'Good Cop, Bad Cop' technique of questioning a 
suspect. (That they fell into it so automatically suggests to me that 
it was an old habit, which in turn suggests to me that they had 
worked as partners in some sort of Law Enforcement or Investigative 
work in the past.) The 'bad cop' is always nasty and disrespectful to 
the suspect, even if the suspect is a well-dressed, rich old white 
man (even President of USA). If only we got to see Arthur and Amos 
questioning Rookwood, maybe we would have seen Amos calling him out 
of his name, just 'old man', 'crybaby', 'traitor'.

On another tentacle, saying someone 'Old man' or 'Woman' or 'Elf' is 
not NECESSARILY disrespectful -- this reminds me vaguely of something 
from THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO -- he was speaking of some woman dissident 
who was *such* an engaging speaker that the bureaucrats of the 
dissidence-suppression police who were typing up her paperwork were 
so entranced that they begged her to go on and on. And he said they 
had a problem of what to call her, since it was against the rules to 
give a prisoner the respect of calling her by name, and they *sure* 
couldn't call a traitor 'Comrade', but it doesn't work to call a 
person 'Prisoner' while begging her for more stories, so they called 
her 'Woman'. "Woman, go on with the story, what happened after that?" 
He said they thought that if calling a woman 'Woman' was good enough 
for Jesus Christ, it was good enough for them.

Athena already posted that Voldemort didn't need to conjure up 
or kidnap a baby, as he had the equipment (Bertha and Peter) to 
make one the old-fashioned way. I can add: that way, he could have 
used his magic to make the developing baby particularly suitable for 
his purposes from the beginning.

Also already posted was my question as to "Where does it say 
Karkaroff was a Hogwarts student?" and my quote that Dumbledore 
said that Vernon and Petunia were the ONLY family Harry had left.




From lmccabe at sonic.net  Sat Apr 27 19:29:56 2002
From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:29:56 -0000
Subject: request for acronym - missing Weasley child and Snape evil
In-Reply-To: <aaccpl+joop@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaeu7k+lgi6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38247

Athena stands on the rocky shore deep in thought.  She is 
contemplating new battle strategies when the swift running of a grey 
wolf catches her attention.  He runs close to her, but in an 
unthreatening manner.  He drops a piece of parchment at her feet and 
quickly retreats.  Athena reaches downward and picks up the 
parchment and gives a small smile.  Her request for an acronym has 
been answered.  The slip with its pawprint proudly proclaims:


H.A.G.R.I.D. W.A.N.T.S. B.R.A.S.S. D.R.A.G.O.N.S. A.S. P.E.T.S.
(Harry's All-seing Groupie Ron Is Demonstrated: Weasleys 
Alphabetically Naming Their Sons Brings Ron As Seventh Son, David 
(Really A Good Offspring) Never Survived Although Still 
Positionating Exactly Third Son)


Athena then notices another piece of parchment blowing in the wind 
towards her.  She grabs it in midair and reads:

How about A.N.S.W.E.R.S.  (Abandoned Naming Scheme: Weasley's 
Enigmatic Ron a Seer) signed Brady

Athena considers this, but hesitates.  It is a simpler acronym and 
would be much easier to remember, but it doesn't mention the Seventh 
Son aspect which she considers to be crucial.  Then something else 
catches her eye.  There is a ship off the coast sailing by in the 
beautiful Greek waters.  The HMS LOLLIPOPS and Athena sees that the 
fair Captain Tabouli is waving to catch her attention.  The captain 
places a parchment in a bottle and drops it in the water.  The waves 
quickly bring it to the rocky shore.  Athena extracts the parchment 
and reads the message:

Poor old Ron, eh?  It's just not fair.  Overshadowed by his 
brothers, overshadowed by his best friends... what a:

W.A.N.T.O.N. M.O.R.A.S.S. O.F. T.O.S.H. (Weasleys Alphabetically 
Named Third Omitted Nipper, Making Our Ron A Seventh Son, 
Outstripping Fellows Through Oracular Secrets Harboured)

Athena considers the text of the acronym and thinks it appropriate, 
but furrows her brow when she considers the words that the initials 
spell out.  It seems disrespectful to the Goddess.  She shows the 
three parchments to her familiar, the owl perched on the shoulder of 
her armored breastplate.  The owl hoots approvingly to the one with 
the paw print on it.  Athena nods and tucks that parchment inside 
her tunic nearest her heart.  The other parchments she hands to Nike 
her companion as well as the bottle.  Nike will later fill the 
bottle with sacred olive oil and carefully scrape the ink from the 
parchments to reuse them later.

Athena decides to forgo thinking of battle plans for the evening.  
Instead she contemplates sitting at her loom and designing a new 
tapestry.  She is considering a new subject which would utilize many 
silver threads.  The noble wolf. 

 A howl can be heard in the air. A victory howl.

-Thank you for all your submissions,

Athena

And on a quick side note - I saw a video in my local library 
entitled "The Magical World of Harry Potter:the unauthorized story 
of J.K. Rowling.  Director/Producer Stephen Grant by Eaton 
Entertainment 2000, running time 50 minutes.  

I watched it once several months ago and I must say that it was poor 
quality at the time on my VCR as it had almost outlived its lifespan 
being watched far too many times by library patrons.  What is 
important from that video is that JKR was interviewed onstage and 
when asked about what characters she liked to write about the best - 
she had said the following about Snape (as near as my memory has on 
this) - she loved writing him because he was pure evil.  She also 
proclaimed that she loved writing Hagrid and felt that he would be a 
good friend to have with you in real life.  She mentioned going to a 
bank and needing a loan, "oh and by the way, I'd like you to meet my 
friend Hagrid."

This may or may not indicate that Snape is really the Evil Overlord 
in training - but it certainly doesn't discount anyone's 
uncertainties about his true intentions.  All I'm certain about is 
that Fudge Is Evil FIE!

----
Athena





From jmmears at prodigy.net  Sat Apr 27 19:53:19 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:53:19 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's baby form
In-Reply-To: <aabkkf+3rut@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaevjf+4m4v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38248

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nuriaobradors" <nobradors at h...> wrote:
> 
> Might be, but I've been thinking of another theory: Bertha 
Jorkins. 
> In the book (sorry, I don't have it with me now), it says 
something 
> about Peter seducing her... I guess he might probably got her 
> pregnant and Voldemort took the offspring's body. Perhaps it 
wasn't 
> even a 9-month pregnancy, as magic and perversion are involved.
> 
> > BTW, here's a nasty thing to picture in one's mind:  Pettigrew 
> > having to change Voldemort's dirty diapers.   EWWWWWWWW.
> 
> <ROTFLMAO> Yuck! 


I don't know if Nuria is reading a translated version of GoF, but my 
UK/US versions don't mention anything about Peter *seducing* Bertha 
Jorkins.

"But Wormtail - displaying a presence of mind I would never have 
expected of him - convinced Bertha Jorkins to accompany him on a 
night-time stroll.  He overpowered her...he brought her to me.  And 
Bertha Jorkins, who might have ruined all, proved instead to be a 
gift beyond my wildest dreams...for - with a little persuasion - she 
became a veritable mine of information."  GoF, Chapter 33 UK edition

I suppose you could wonder if "night-time stroll" was a euphamism 
for seduction, but that never occured to me, and I've never heard 
this mentioned before.

I really would find it hard to believe that JKR intended anything 
quite this EWWWWW (not to mention, Yuck!).

Jo Serenadust




From Ahketsi at aol.com  Sat Apr 27 20:07:07 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 16:07:07 EDT
Subject: request for acronym - missing Weasley child
Message-ID: <24.2489d16d.29fc5eeb@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38249

"It would make sense if Ron were a seer, We really haven't seen Ron be 
good at much else.  He makes a good side kick, but Hermione is a 
great student, very clever, etc.  Ron needs some special power, 
because you know, he is just as cool as Harry, and he and his family 
have had some a central part.  It would be a poetic injustice, if 
Good Ol' Ron Weasly were just a run of the mill, common wizard." -Brady

I think it would be great if Ron were a "true" seer. That would be terrific, 
especially since he's always feeling overshadowed by his older brother's 
achievements and his best friends popularity. I mean, it would so exciting, 
and it would definitely come with ups and downs. Personally, though, I think 
that scenario will remain in the realm of possible fanfictions. I think Ron 
will just stay good ol' Ron throughout the series. I mean, not all really 
cool people can have something special. I think Ron will do some interesting 
things, no doubt, probably something unique from his brothers, but I doubt 
that JKR would just give him something exciting, like him being a seer. But 
who knows, it's possible.

"Ahketsi"




From Ahketsi at aol.com  Sat Apr 27 20:35:04 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 16:35:04 EDT
Subject: How will Battle commence?
Message-ID: <10f.1031801c.29fc6578@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38250

"The fact is that, except maybe Dementors, the wizard world would be 
overrun in a matter of days if it was to declare war on the muggle 
world." -Grey Wolf

Well if you ask me, the wizards would definitely win. Wizards are everywhere 
and look just like muggles, except for their outfits. How would the muggles 
become organized? They wouldn't understand what was going on, what they are 
fighting against. Technology rocks, but it can't compare to the combination 
of the wizard's magic and knowledge. (btw, anyone read Animorphs? This topic 
reminds me of that)

Anyway, it seems to me that the wizards would be able to use more than "gas 
explosions" against the muggles. Wizard vs. wizard, they gotta use curses and 
such, but against the muggles... well, just at muggle-repelling charms at the 
world cup. Muggles are utterly vulnerable to magic, they can't get around it 
with technology. Look at when they used to try to burn muggles at the stake, 
they didn't get far then. Granted, bombs and the like are different matters, 
but I bet anything magic can get around all that without too much trouble. 

"Muggles are too many, and have too many weapons. The only solution is 
to have them unaware, and if Voldemort doesn't realise this, he'll be 
soon destroyed (he may be inmortal, but a granade will blast him to 
pieces he likes it or not)." -Grey Wolf

It's obvious Voldemort's a pretty bright guy, despite being evil. I don't 
think the muggles need to be unaware that they are being attacked, it just 
wont matter, they don't understand what they're up against. 

"He certainly doesn't seem at all concerned about maintaining wizarding 
secrecy. IMO, his aim is all-out Muggle/Wizard war, with the hope of 
exterminating or enslaving every Muggle on earth."  -Pippin

This reminds me of The metal guy in X-Men, what is his name? He can control 
any metal I think, oh well I can't remember, but you know there are the 
mutants and regular people? Anyway, some mutants just wanted to destroy 
everyone who wasn't a mutant, I think. 

"Ahketsi"




From Ahketsi at aol.com  Sat Apr 27 20:47:08 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 16:47:08 EDT
Subject: How will Battle commence?/Ginny's name
Message-ID: <138.d773865.29fc684c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38251

"I'm just shocked that some people believe that guns are still the only 
answer 
to the world's problems." -Earendil

"He certainly doesn't seem at all concerned about maintaining wizarding 
secrecy.  IMO, his aim is all-out Muggle/Wizard war, with the hope of 
exterminating or enslaving every Muggle on earth. Thus his quest for 
immortality, so that wizards can survive without relying on Muggle mates." 
-Pippin


Well (Earendil), if you'll look at where this began, it was suggested that 
Voldemort might want to exterminate all muggles, thus bringing on the 
discussion of a war. I mean, we're just speculating on who would win if it 
occurred. Btw, I agree, I don't think muggles would have a chance. 

Also, about Ginny's name, I just thought that was another spelling of Jenny. 

-Jacey







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Apr 27 23:51:41 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:51:41 -0000
Subject: How will Battle commence?
In-Reply-To: <aaenpc+50ml@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aafdid+6g8a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38252

-- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:

 >>>>Magic, as all other  forms of internal energy (like shooting 
arrows with bows or using a  sword) can get very tiring in very 
short time. If you use AK a few times, except the most poweful, 
you're going to be panting quite  heavily. <<<<

Is there  canon for this? I can't recall any instances where 
Rowling's wizards wear themselves out  doing magic. Even baby 
Voldy, so weak he can barely manage to hold a wand, can kill 
Frank Bryce with AK, and Harry does the stunning spell five times 
in a row during  practice sessions, with no mention of any 
draining effects. Nor does he suffer any aftereffects from the 
Patronus spell, though that's magic so powerful few wizards can 
manage it. He does tire when practicing patronus with Lupin, but 
that seems to be more from the effort of fighting off  the mental 
effects of the   boggart-dementor than from Patronus itself. 

I don't think a cast of thousands battle is where Rowling is going 
with the story, but the idea that Voldemort's forces couldn't be a 
credible threat to the Muggle world doesn't hold much water with 
me. I'm not even an armchair general, but I know that numbers 
aren't the only thing that matter, otherwise Quechua would be the 
language of Peru. The point is, a small cohesive force with 
superior weapons and mobility can overwhelm an empire.  The 
wizards definitely have superior mobility. As for weapons, AK 
may not be a very useful combat spell, but in every wizard Muggle 
match up we've seen, the Muggles have come off worst. Tanks 
have internal combustion engines...what would a flame freezing 
charm do to them?

I think it's assuming too much to say that the laws of 
thermodynamics mean the wizards can't stop bullets. The 
wizards can alter time, so they obviously aren't bound by our 
concept of the laws of conservation of energy and matter. 
Conceivably they could even overcome their numerical 
disadvantage by multiple time-turns (see the Heinlein story "All 
You Zombies" for details.) 

But I think they would mostly play on Muggle awe of their godlike 
powers. Suppose we saw all our leaders turned into gerbils on 
national TV? 

Pippin





From pennylin at swbell.net  Sun Apr 28 02:11:23 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 21:11:23 -0500
Subject: Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #4--Will HP become classic?
References: <aa4k4l+ujjc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002701c1ee59$ff237b60$bd26fea9@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 38253

Hi --

Okay, I'm going to try & get this off again (first draft was lost when the computer froze up earlier this week).  

Abigail commented:

<<<I think we can all agree that neither universal popularity nor universal 
critical acclaim can be considered criteria for calling a book a classic.>>>

I agree completely with this.  I think this business of defining what a "classic" is can be quite tricky, and it ends up being arbitrarily subjective as best I can tell.  Bookstores used to have a section called "Literature" (or maybe even "Classics") which housed all the books that were likely to be assigned in English lit classes.  Strangely, of course, now that I think back on it (I worked in a bookstore off & on for all of high school & most of college), hardly anything more recent than 1930s was shelved in this section.  Steinbeck (and of course Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc.) works were shelved there, but Vonnegut, Fowles, Salinger, Kesey & lots of other authors were shelved under general fiction, presumably because of some "longevity" factor?  Similarly, I recently noticed that one finds the "Anne of Green Gables" books in the Childrens' Classics area.  But, that Childrens' Classics area does *not* include the Little House books (harumph!), E.B. White & other more recent books of enduring allure to generations of children.  So, who decided that LM Montgomery is a classic author but Laura Ingalls Wilder isn't?  

I agree with some of the factors that Gwen identified for a "classic," including the ability to stand up to repetitive reads, ability to be read on a number of different levels, appeal to a wide-ranging audience, etc.  I can't do much more to expound on that point, since, as I note above, I find the classification of books in this manner to be completely arbitrary & subjective.  Ditto for genre.  I suppose in the end, I agree with Gwen & would put HP in the category of fantasy more than any other.  I hate when people label HP as "boarding school genre."  I didn't think there even was such a "genre" as "boarding school books" until some of my friends who have been reluctant to read HP made that reference (based, of course, on hearsay & what limited amount they've read in media coverage about HP).  :--D

Abigail again:

<<<now for a question that makes some sense to me - how long-lived will the books be?  I'd say the odds are stacked in favor of the books surviving at least another generation of kids (and whatever the books' appeal to adults today, I think they will survive as children's books if only because it will soon be impossible to reach puberty without having read them).>>>>

Ah, here we must part company.  :--)  I think in the final analysis the series as a whole will be classed as a hybrid & will be shelved in both the "young adult" area & in the adult fiction area (although perhaps in fantasy?).  I agree with Gwen that while the first 2 books are more juvenile, the series as a whole can't really be put into that category.  I love this quote from Gwen's excellent post on this subject:

"For me, it's the transition of the children from a world that
only matters to them (that is, a world where they are at the center)
to a world that is clearly much more vast than they are, that makes
their journey to adulthood begin. And that in turn is what pushes the
story out of the realm of children's books, for me. PoA begins to let
us in on the nuances of these adult relationships, and the things
going on in the world outside Hogwarts. GoF continues this trend. They
create a need for the children to figure out how they are going to fit
in that much larger, much more dangerous, much darker world. How are
they going to change it? And how much more will we learn about their
elders in the meantime?"

Gwen finally articulated what I've been trying to put my finger on for so long.  POA is my favorite book (with GoF as a close 2nd), and I think that she's hit on why this is perhaps so: we see Harry's world expanding and we start to see relationship complexities that really start to draw the reader in even more.  :::grins happily at Gwen::::

Abigail again:
  
<<< How many people have I seen in this group and others, mention that they have given copies of the books to many children in their family or acquainance?>>>

Actually, I've given HP as gifts *many* times, but never to children so far.  I've given the set (or at least PS/SS) to numbers of adult friends and family members.  Of course, I also don't have any child relatives or children of friends who are the right age to receive the books necessarily.  But, I don't think that "spreading the gospel of HP" can be said to be limited to giving them to children.

I also agree with Gwen that the books have tremendous cross-generational appeal.  I think the broad & unprecedented cross-generational appeal is perhaps the single factor most likely to spur the books into eventually being labelled as "classics."  I agree with Abigail that universal critical acclaim & universal popularity/mass appeal do not automatically create a "classic"; however, I think the combination of critical acclaim (or critical attention really more than acclaim) as well as the remarkable popular appeal of the HP books will eventually propel them into the ranks of "classic literature," no matter whether you define them as "childrens" books or "young adult" or a hybrid or fantasy or even adult general fiction for that matter.  They defy genre and classification in my mind.      

Eileen argued however:

<<<Well..... First of all, I don't think the cross-generational thing is 
entirely off the ground yet. Way too many adults who don't bother with 
kids' books, and are buying their kids HP because the HP books are 
hyped.>>>>

Really?  I think not only of the marketing research that shows that something approaching 50% of the HP books are being sold to people over age 14, but also of the *huge* number of adult friends & acquaintances who've read the books (most often not on my urging ...really).  I constantly go to parties or dinners or church events or recruiting functions for my husband's firm and find that over half the adults in attendance have read at least one HP book (and 9 times out of 10, it's *not* because they have kids).  I recall being at one recruiting party before GoF came out & was happily learning that one of my favorites amongst Bryce's partners was a huge HP fan.  We were happily chattering away when another woman came up & joined our conversation & so on ...until we had a group of about 5 people planning to go to the GoF party together.  At that point, Bryce called over to find out what we were talking about & when someone shouted, "We're talking about Harry Potter," another guy shouted out "Oh, damn, those are the best books I've read in ages."  This is at a *law firm* recruiting party.  None of these people are obsessed enough to join a group like this, but they've read & enjoyed the books & are eager for more.  They're happy to talk about it with other adults; they're happy to pass on a great recommendation.  I think there's absolutely enormous cross-generational appeal!

Eileen wrote:

<<<Similarily, I am amazed by how prescient GoF has turned out to be. I 
am very glad for JKR that she published GoF before September 11th. If 
afterwards, she would have forever been accused of "making 
connections": something that I expect to see critics saying when OotP 
comes out.>>>>>

I too was oddly comforted by the parallels in GoF to our post-Sept 11th world.  Very prescient indeed .... (agreed that it's wonderful that JKR published that before the Sept 11th events).

Penny
(silently cheering that she got this off before the week's end after all ....though I didn't get to do as thorough a job as I originally hoped)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sun Apr 28 04:26:25 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:26:25 +1000
Subject: Wizards at War, snappier 7th son acronym
Message-ID: <001501c1ee6c$f3399380$b734c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 38254

Interesting comments from Grey Wolf and Pippin about who would get the upper hand in a Wizards vs Muggles war.  I think odds would have to be slightly in the Muggles' favour, if only from sheer weight of numbers, but evener than the Muggles would think.

After all, the Wizards may be grossly outnumbered, and short on weapons of mass destruction, but they seem to be able to heal injuries within seconds, and can teleport themselves wherever they like, and go invisible.  Surely incredible advantages in battle.  Not to mention being able to Obliviate and Confund their foes, both using the appropriate spells and by introducing weird mythical creatures into the battlefield which would make the Muggles think they'd gone mad, or been subjected to some kind of hologram display or 3D movie or even hallucinogenic substances.

The other thing which came to mind is the ability to tell friend from foe.  From what we see in the books, Wizards can tell wizards from Muggles with no problem at all.  (Can they sense the magical aura, or something?)  Muggles, on the other hand, are notoriously poor at identifying wizards, as the Salem trials presumably demonstrated.  Provided the wizards got their Muggle clothing right, they could quietly blend into society as spies and cause untold havoc with magic, all the more so because the majority of their enemies wouldn't actually believe in the stuff.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the Wizards, if cunning enough strategists, could probably win a Muggles vs Wizards war.  And what then?  This is always the thing with those Evil Overlords.  If they *did* take over the world, what would they do with it?  What sort of regime would Voldemort maintain?

Now there's a nasty speculation.  Any thoughts?

Ah yes, and I thought of a much snappier, zappier Ron as seventh son due to alphabetical naming scheme acronym... perhaps we'll see evidence of his hidden clairvoyant powers in a showdown, where his and Voldemort's...

W.A.N.D.S. C.R.I.S.S.-C.R.O.S.S.

(Weasleys Alphabetically Named Dead Son; Consequently, Ron Is Seventh Son, Covert Recipient Of Second Sight)

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com  Sun Apr 28 14:07:11 2002
From: theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com (Theresa ryan)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:07:11 +0000
Subject: Voldemort good?
Message-ID: <F2351ndcx3Vp20N39x600002a33@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38255

(Ducking all missiles aimed my way)
  I know, I know, he is supposed to be the manifestation of evil, but look 
at it this way, all the other characters are multi faceted with some good 
and some bad parts in them, yes, even Harry. (Unwilling to make up with Ron, 
childish but still bad) Ergo, Voldemort should have some good side in him.
    This provides scope for an unconventional twist in the story- Maybe 
Voldemort will join Dumbledore against Fudge and the MOM in a battle? (Which 
by the way, I think would be a guerrilla type war) It's an interesting 
thought. Forget Evil! Ron, how about Good! Voldemort?
I'm sure someone can come up with an acronym for this, I need more 
practice...
     Have fun!
        theresa.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Sun Apr 28 14:40:22 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:40:22 -0000
Subject: Voldemort good?
In-Reply-To: <F2351ndcx3Vp20N39x600002a33@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <aah1km+17u9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38256

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Theresa ryan" <theresa_ryan85 at h...> wrote:
> (Ducking all missiles aimed my way)
>   I know, I know, he is supposed to be the manifestation of evil, 
but look 
> at it this way, all the other characters are multi faceted with 
some good 
> and some bad parts in them, yes, even Harry. (Unwilling to make up 
with Ron, 
> childish but still bad) Ergo, Voldemort should have some good side 
in him.
>     This provides scope for an unconventional twist in the story- 
Maybe 
> Voldemort will join Dumbledore against Fudge and the MOM in a 
battle? (Which 
> by the way, I think would be a guerrilla type war) It's an 
interesting 
> thought. Forget Evil! Ron, how about Good! Voldemort?
> I'm sure someone can come up with an acronym for this, I need more 
> practice...


To say that someone can turn out to be good, means that there is some 
doubt, some mystery about his/her true character. Snape, for 
instance, particularly in PS. But we have *seen* Voldemort kill 
innocents - and what can a person do which is more evil than that? So 
we *know* that Voldemort isn't good. No mystery, so no possible 
future plot twists in that direction, I'm afraid. 


Naama




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sun Apr 28 16:08:32 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:08:32 -0000
Subject: Voldemort good?
In-Reply-To: <F2351ndcx3Vp20N39x600002a33@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <aah6q0+j2iu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38257

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Theresa ryan" <theresa_ryan85 at h...> wrote:
> (Ducking all missiles aimed my way)
>   I know, I know, he is supposed to be the manifestation of evil, but 
> look at it this way, all the other characters are multi faceted with 
> some good and some bad parts in them, yes, even Harry. (Unwilling to 
> make up with Ron, childish but still bad) Ergo, Voldemort should have 
> some good side in him. This provides scope for an unconventional 
> twist in the story- Maybe Voldemort will join Dumbledore against 
> Fudge and the MOM in a battle? (Which by the way, I think would be a 
> guerrilla type war) It's an interesting thought. Forget Evil! Ron, 
> how about Good! Voldemort?
> I'm sure someone can come up with an acronym for this, I need more 
> practice...
>      Have fun!
>         theresa.

There is a good side to Voldemort's personality: he cares for his pets 
(he absolutely adores his snake), which is a common side to evil 
overlords (since the pet isn't likely to be a traitor like the rest of 
his followers). I doubt this will mean he allies with D against F or 
viceversa, but it does give him a human side (note human isn't 
necessarily equivalent to good). Many "green" activists (like 
Greenpeace) like animals better than humans, for example (I do that 
too, but then again, I'm a wolf, so it doesn't count), and they're 
generally considered defenders of a "good" cause.

As Naama points out, though, no good side we find is going to alter the 
fact that he kills inocents without remorse, so even if he decided to 
hung the robe and join the save-the-boa movement, that wouldn't make 
him less guilty.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From vdegroote at wi.rr.com  Sun Apr 28 16:21:38 2002
From: vdegroote at wi.rr.com (kitty_felini)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:21:38 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew on map/Misuse Muggle Artifacts
Message-ID: <aah7ii+87se@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38258

The following are acouple of things I've been wanting to put out 
there for a while now, but...Anyway, if these ideas have already 
been presented, oops & sorry.

1)  A while back ther was some discussion over why Fred & George 
wouldn't notice Peter Pettigrew on the Marauder's Map when he was 
hanging out with Ron all the time.  I thnk that all of the Marauders 
would show up with a label refelecting their nicknames.  This would 
help to protect their identies should the map be found/confiscated.  
So, when Fred & Geaorge saw "Wormtail" with Ron all the time, they 
figured it was some goofy joke that pet rats are labeled "wormtail" 
& thought nothing more of it.  Since Moony, Prongs & Padfoot weren't 
in the castle at the time that Fred & George were examining the map, 
they'd never show up & not raise questions. I'm guessing that by the 
time they were giving the map to Harry, they had it so memorized 
that they hadn't referred to it in awhile & hadn't seen Padfoot or 
Moony padding around the grounds. It's about timing.  If they 
arent't on the grounds or in the castle at the time that you are 
looking at it then...Also, if they did see Moony, Padfoot & Wormtail 
on the map they may have just thought that they were ghosts, which 
certainly could be marauders.  The absense of Prongs could be 
explained away with the idea that he hadn't passed yet! (Which we of 
COurse know the opposite tobe true.)  

2)It seems that the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts seems to be quite 
grey! What exactly is a Muggle Artifact?  Things that use 
ekeltricity?  Internal-Cumbustion engines?  So why is an enchanted 
teapot a Muggle Artifact? Is turning a rubber chicken into a fake 
wand amisuse of Muggle Artifacts? It seems that there are many 
things that are used in both worlds, so what defines Muggle 
Arifact?  Wouldn't it be fun(ny) to see a flying vacuum sweeper? Or 
how about a magical microwave with would work much like a Star trek 
replicator.  That is something that could be of great assistance 
should the House Elves rebell!  How do Witches/Wizards launder their 
clothes?  Is it wrong to enchant a washer/dryer set up?  No Muggles 
will see it as it's in you own home!(Arthur rationalized the car by 
saying he wouldn't actually useit, but ehn look what happened.)  And 
I suppose if a Muggle could get a hold of an enchanted tea set...I'm 
so confused!  Any theories?    

Kitty 




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Apr 28 16:55:25 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:55:25 -0000
Subject: /Misuse Muggle Artifacts
In-Reply-To: <aah7ii+87se@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aah9ht+44dg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38259

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kitty_felini" <vdegroote at w...> wrote:

> And  I suppose if a Muggle could get a hold of an enchanted tea 
> set...I'm so confused!  Any theories?    

I'm confused by their laws, too, but I thought the deal with the 
teapot was that the old witch had died (of old age) and her next of 
kin were Muggles (maybe she was Muggle-born and her next of kin were 
her great-grand-nephews and -nieces, maybe her only child was a Squib 
who made a life among Muggles and the next of kin were her 
great-grand-children).

The Muggle next-of-kin may have known that Granny was a witch (at 
least they knew that she was unusually old, over 120 years old, and 
they may have seen her do commonplace magic with her wand) but they 
didn't know anything about MoM, wizarding law, that whole other 
society hidden away.

So they probated her will (or had her declared intestate) in the 
normal Muggle way, and sorted all the objects in her house in the 
normal Muggle way, and sent a lot of stuff off to Muggle thrift 
shops, including an old-fashioned tea set that was not recognized as 
enchanted nor as a valuable antique...




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Apr 28 18:02:19 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 28 Apr 2002 18:02:19 -0000
Subject: File - VFAQ.htm 
Message-ID: <1020016939.38839370.90286.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38260

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020428/b6cf3781/attachment.html>

From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Apr 28 18:02:20 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 28 Apr 2002 18:02:20 -0000
Subject: File - hbfile.html 
Message-ID: <1020016940.38840401.90286.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38261

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020428/b3295a86/attachment.html>

From finwitch at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 28 18:20:24 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:20:24 -0000
Subject: House-elves/Ron prejudiced?
Message-ID: <aaheh8+i2rh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38262

Ron *and* Hagrid - along with several others are of opinion that 
house-elves like working. And they do. Including Dobby. Work is part 
of how they define themselves, less important to Dobby, but even he 
*is* included somewhat.

They were insulted at Hermione's suggestions:
Pension, clothes, freedom, vacation: To them, it all suggests that 
Hermione is somehow displeased with their work as she suggests they 
should not do it. They're deeply insulted by this.

Ron's "Good Service!" is excellent compliment that makes them feel 
good of themselves.

Payment: House-elf-way of saying how much he/she likes the master 
without being embarrassingly obvious. 10 Galleons/week is standard 
payment, under "no friends at all" - status. The less pay, the more 
house-elf is showing friendly attitude. Dobby explains it - he 
doesn't want more than One Galleon/week because he likes Dumbledore. 
However, he'd not accept *any* payment from Harry.

"Winky may be freed, but Winky is not so low as to being paid" - 
also... working for someone she doesn't care enough of to do it for 
free - a disgrace.

While they ought not to be mistreated, well... Ron's comment that 
House-elves like to work - well, it's just stating how it *is* - not 
a prejudice. They *do* like it - they say so themselves and act 
accordingly.

Werewolf- well, it *was* full moon, and they *are* dangerous at that 
era, also he was stressed, and adrenaline makes people say nasty 
things...

The comment about giants: Ron was telling them what wizard-born 
people see in Giants -- he's aware of the prejudice and is telling 
about it to Harry and Hermione, who are not. Not to say *he* is 
prejudices - and not against Hagrid. He was just offended that Hagrid 
didn't *tell* them. Quite another thing, I'd say.

Also, *Hagrid* said giant-mothers aren't very caring, speaking of his 
*own*. None to say it applies to half-giants in any way, though. They 
obviously *do* care, as Hagrid and Madame Maxime do.

-- Finwitch





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 28 17:47:21 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 17:47:21 -0000
Subject: How will Battle commence?
In-Reply-To: <aacksf+luig@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aahcj9+v7jd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38263

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ahketsi at a... wrote:
" 
 Well if you ask me, the wizards would definitely win. Wizards are 
 everywhere 
 and look just like muggles, except for their outfits. How would 
the 
 muggles 
 become organized? They wouldn't understand what was going on, 
what 
they are 
 fighting against. Technology rocks, but it can't compare to the 
 combination 
 of the wizard's magic and knowledge.

 
True... Magic *can* be directed on only Muggles, but what gun will 
only destroy wizards? Dog-training mentioned is a good idea, though -
Marjorie Dursley may have done it already withou knowing it - or why 
do her dogs tend to attack Harry but not Dudley? Bombs and such would 
harm Muggles themselves more than wizards!

Ahketsiba:

> > (btw, anyone read Animorphs? This topic 
> > reminds me of that)
> 

 I've read few books... I'd want to be able to turn into dolphin 
like 
 the animorphs did in the last one I read... What can I say - 
dolphins 
 are my favorite animals so far...

Ahketsiba: 
> > Anyway, it seems to me that the wizards would be able to use more 
> than "gas 
> > explosions" against the muggles. Wizard vs. wizard, they gotta 
use 
> curses and 
> > such, but against the muggles... well, just at muggle-repelling 
> charms at the 
> > world cup. Muggles are utterly vulnerable to magic, they can't 
get 
> around it 
> > with technology.

 
 True... Most of it is of *not knowing* though. Muggles being 
 *totally* unaware of the *existence* of magic, and some would lock 
 any adult into a mental hospital if they claimed otherwise. 
Wizards, 
 no matter how in-bred within wizarding world at least do know that 
 Muggles *exist*. It also wouldn't be all *that* difficult to 
capture 
 one and learn...
 
 How would Polyjuice work if the "hair-donator" were Kissed, BTW? 
 While they can't be physically dead, (or the Polyjuice-user would, 
 too) does a sucked-out soul count in this matter? Just to think of 
 it... Getting a DE into Muggle-army to learn, then Imperio the big 
 boss and take over. Anyway... Imerius-curse on the leader of a 
 dictator-style system would do a *lot* of harm to the people, and 
 help Voldemort a lot!
 
 But I think Voldemort wants to rule wizard-world first. So... a DE 
is 
 *already* in Ministry, and another a close friend to the Minister 
of 
 Magic? Almost too easy to Imperio the Minister - or kill him!
 
 The rest of the books *will* be dark indeed. Never know *what* 
 Voldemort is about to do, who's on your side and who's not...
 
 Marauder's Map *might* have other qualities not yet discovered by 
 Harry... where did it go? What ever happened to it after Crouch Jr 
 used it? Did Dumbledore get it or did Crouch send it to Voldemort?

Pippin_999:
 
> > I don't think a cast of thousands battle is where Rowling is 
going 
> > with the story, but the idea that Voldemort's forces couldn't be 
a 
> > credible threat to the Muggle world doesn't hold much water with 
> > me. I'm not even an armchair general, but I know that numbers 
> > aren't the only thing that matter, otherwise Quechua would be the 
> > language of Peru. The point is, a small cohesive force with 
> > superior weapons and mobility can overwhelm an empire.  The 
> > wizards definitely have superior mobility. As for weapons, AK 
> > may not be a very useful combat spell, but in every wizard Muggle 
> > match up we've seen, the Muggles have come off worst. Tanks 
> > have internal combustion engines...what would a flame freezing 
> > charm do to them?

 
 Not to mention that magic and electricity/techonology simply won't 
*work*  with lots of magic around.

Pippin_999:
 
> > I think it's assuming too much to say that the laws of 
> > thermodynamics mean the wizards can't stop bullets. The 
> > wizards can alter time, so they obviously aren't bound by our 
> > concept of the laws of conservation of energy and matter. 
> > Conceivably they could even overcome their numerical 
> > disadvantage by multiple time-turns (see the Heinlein story "All 
> > You Zombies" for details.) 
 
 Banishing charm wouldn't work because a bullet is hard to aim at. 
 However... Voldemort curses the Muggle general with Imperius after 
Apparating right next to him - and then *he's* the one giving orders! 
Or he commands a Muggle to shoot at other Muggles...

Pippin _999:
 
> > But I think they would mostly play on Muggle awe of their godlike 
> > powers. Suppose we saw all our leaders turned into gerbils on 
> > national TV? 
  
 Turn them into gerbils? How about putting Imperius on them so 
they'd 
 actually *help* the wizard coming to power with no one even noticing 
anything before it's too late?
 Voldemort seems to be *fond* of using Crucio, AK and occasionally 
 Imperius when it suits his plans better...
 
 -- Finwitch






From finwitch at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 28 17:23:58 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 17:23:58 -0000
Subject: What is _right_ vs. what is _easy..._
In-Reply-To: <000901c1ed40$34095040$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <aahb7e+7ero@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38264

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
 
> Although I am also of the opinion that Harry will suffer some sort 
of moral descent at some point during the series (and hurt others in 
the process), I cannot imagine Harry actually letting Malfoy go to 
jail if he were innocent.  He might hum and haw about it for awhile, 
but even without Hermione's counsel, he would inevitably do the right 
thing.  It's just him.  I  mean, he spared the man who killed his 
parents and made his life miserable for 10 years.  I have a hard time 
believing that he wouldn't show the same mercy to a boy that -- 
although a major prick -- hasn't really done *much* lasting harm to 
him or his friends.  Of course, Draco and Co. have certainly made the 
trio's life a living teenage hell -- but sending them unjustly to 
Azkaban would be too petty for Harry, IMO.
>

I agree.. Though if it *does* become a moral choice - like that it's 
Harry cares for who *really* did the thing, and the one who's accused 
is someone Harry doesn't like - well, Hermione nor Ron might not be 
able to do anything. While Harry trusts them, when it comes to 
needing councel of something not involving a spell, it's Sirius, 
possibly Dumbledore, but mainly Sirius for now.

Sirius on other hand, would not need much - and be in the position to 
give such guidance that Harry *would* speak up. For a one thing, 
there's no question that James would have, but most importantly, 
Sirius having *been* there for 12 years, beeing guilty of nothing he 
was accused of. Though not exactly innocent - unregistered animagus 
as one charge he *is* guilty of, but I do not think it'd warrant 12 
years - but possibly some time in Azcaban, never the less.

I have no doubt what Sirius' opinion would be, even if it's Snape who 
is accused wrongly. Only problem is how Sirius would point it out...

-- Finwitch





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 28 15:45:19 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 15:45:19 -0000
Subject: Voldemort good?
In-Reply-To: <aah1km+17u9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aah5ef+b9ho@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38265

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> wrote:
> 
> To say that someone can turn out to be good, means that there is 
some 
> doubt, some mystery about his/her true character. Snape, for 
> instance, particularly in PS. But we have *seen* Voldemort kill 
> innocents - and what can a person do which is more evil than that? 
So 
> we *know* that Voldemort isn't good. No mystery, so no possible 
> future plot twists in that direction, I'm afraid. 
> 
 
And there's NO way Dumbledore and Voldemort will be joining ranks!

Dumbledore to Fudge:
"Only one I'm against is Voldemort. If you're against him, we're on 
the same side".
Not exact, perhaps - but he *said* something like that in GoF - and 
Dumbledore is not a liar, is he?

No... Fudge and Voldemort against Dumbledore is more likely - with 
Fudge under Imperius - possibly.

But if Voldemort is to do something 'good'... it might be saving 
Harry from a DE because he wants to kill Harry himself.

What is it about Wormtail that Harry'll be glad he saved him? Will 
Sirius get free, will Wormtail save Harry's life, both or something 
else? I *do* hope Sirius gets free in the 5th book... And I'd like to 
see a Sirius Black vs. a Dursley scene - particularly Marge! Perhaps 
as Sirius comes to take custody of Harry - or just comes for a visit.

-- Finwitch





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 28 16:20:01 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:20:01 -0000
Subject: How will Battle commence?
In-Reply-To: <aacksf+luig@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aah7fh+lcn6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38266

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:

> The fact is that, except maybe Dementors, the wizard world would be 
> overrun in a matter of days if it was to declare war on the muggle 
> world. Let's check the numbers (and in a war, numbers id the only 
thing 
> that matters). Aproximate world wizard population: 100 million (and 
> even that is exagerating). Muggle world: over 6000 million. Muggles 
> have guns, missiles, flamethrowers, chemical weapons, tanks, and a 
very 
> long etc. Wizards have "gas explosions" (Peter's explosion) and AK, 
> which has to be aimed and still kills only one.

But that's not *true*. Peter Pettigrew managed to kill 12 Muggles 
with a *single* AK or that's how I read the descriptions of it - 
might have killed *more* but there weren't any more of them! AND, 
they also have Imperius: command a Muggle to start shooting at other 
Muggles; confusion spells that prevent Muggles from *seeing* wizards, 
Apparation - so they can Apparate directly into the best strategic 
places, Time turners, so the wizards *can* be in two places at the 
same time, medicine that heals wounds quickly...

> A giant can be killed 
> easily, with a tank (and there are many more tanks than giants). 
> Dragons facing missiles, bombers and jets? I give them 10 minutes. 
> Muggles are too many, and have too many weapons. The only solution 
is 
> to have them unaware, and if Voldemort doesn't realise this, he'll 
be 
> soon destroyed (he may be inmortal, but a granade will blast him to 
> pieces he likes it or not). Only dementors would be dangerous, but, 
in 
> a war, they would quickly run out of food. Then again, maybe not, 
but 
> if muggles have survived to this day with them around, they can 
> continue to do so.

They'd be eating Muggle souls, making everyone miserable. Do Muggle 
soldiers usually take chocolate with them?
 
> That would be an interesting end for the books: a major amphibian 
> operation against Azkaban with all the good characters in the book. 
A 
> pity is just too film-ish.

Perhaps... Or a duel with Voldemort, this time the connection NOT 
breaking before it's finished, and we'd get to know all about Lily, 
and James from their own mouths...

But for now... Order of the Phoenix. Could the title refer to an 
Court-process during which Sirius gets free, thus re-born like a 
Phoenix?

-- Finwitch





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Apr 28 18:53:52 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:53:52 -0000
Subject: AK (was How will Battle commence?
In-Reply-To: <aah7fh+lcn6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aahgg0+l7md@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38267

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> 
> But that's not *true*. Peter Pettigrew managed to kill 12 Muggles 
> with a *single* AK or that's how I read the descriptions of it - 

I can't believe that the curse that Peter used was AK. When we have 
seen AK work (on Frank Bryce, on Cedric), there was no explosion 
at all. Peter's curse caused an explosion. Personally, I suspect 
it WAS a gas explosion: one easy way to blow up a street and all the 
people in it is to Curse the gas main under the street.

Does anyone else itch to make AK-47 puns?




From meboriqua at aol.com  Sun Apr 28 19:19:44 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 19:19:44 -0000
Subject: Ron's prejudices (Was: prejudice in the WW (was: If I had to choose...)
In-Reply-To: <014e01c1ee05$0c454d00$8bf54041@default>
Message-ID: <aahi0g+3qrb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38268

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:
 
> I'm not making a judgment so much as simply arguing that it seems to 
me that it's largely factual issue.  Ron *is* demonstrating prejudiced 
behavior against werewolves and giants and house elves when last we 
saw him in GoF.>

You know, Penny, you are successfully making me like Ron quite a bit 
less than I did a few months ago and my upcoming comments will reflect 
that.  However, don't ever think I'll stop being a H/G SHIPper!

Ron definitely displays prejudices several times throughout the series 
but I do not think he does so in the way, say Draco does.  Ron is 
easily influenced by others.  IOW, he is rather weak.  The fact that 
he cannot fight the Imperius Curse is evidence of that to me.  When it 
comes to prejudices, I feel that somewhere along the line when Ron was 
much younger, he heard some arguments against werewolves and giants 
(or maybe he simply heard what nearly everyone around him was saying) 
and took those comments for fact without thinking them through for 
himself.  Ron isn't one to question and is much more likely to "judge 
a book by its cover", so to speak.  He's not strong enough to stand up 
alone and express his views the way Hermione does.  He even holds 
prejudices against girls who aren't pretty enough, like Eloise Midgen, 
and instead gazes adoringly at the prettiest one around, even though 
she may not be particularly nice, as apparently Fleur was not when Ron 
asked her to the Yule Ball, or even when she snorted upon entering 
Hogwarts.  He looks at things too much at face value.

This gives me a bad feeling about Ron.  Good things aren't coming his 
way in the next few books.  What do others think?

--jenny from ravenclaw ***************************




From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no  Sun Apr 28 20:42:10 2002
From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:42:10 -0000
Subject: Durmstrang (formerly Re: Karkaroff/transfer students)
In-Reply-To: <006701c1ed40$15a1ce20$03fea8c0@death-computer>
Message-ID: <aahmr2+ak20@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38269

--- In HPforGrownups "Jamie Lipton" wrote:
[snip]
> - the fact that he is headmaster of a foreign school, and
> therefore must be fluent in whatever language they speak there.
> (I know the currect theory says something about German and
> northern Latvia - but I heard one very interesting theory that
> said Durmstrang is located in outer space :-))
[snip]

Just briefly reappearing to nitpick a little bit.  The evidence in 
canon points towards there being no possibility that Durmstrang is 
located in Latvia, or in the Baltic states at all.  We know that 
Drumstrang is in a place where the winters are very dark, and that 
there are mountains and lakes around the school - Krum says as much 
during the Yule Ball dinner.  We also can deduce that most wizards 
assume Durmstrang is far to the North - Ron's comment that he hoped 
Draco would accidentally slip off a glacier points to this.  The 
method of travel used by Durmstrang suggests that Durmstrang must be 
in a region with strong ties to the sea - a mere lake is not enough; 
the things that sail around most lakes you find around Europe are 
puny things indeed.  The Baltic states are completely devoid of 
mountains - they are almost as flat as Denmark proper.  To find 
mountains, that also fulfill the other conditions, you have to move 
North.  There is terrain fitting the conditions on the Scandinavian 
peninsula and on the Kola peninsula (in Northwestern Russia, North of 
Finland).  

Then there's the fact that JKR herself at a bookreading in Glasgow in 
December 2000 (see 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/6494 ) suggested 
that she thought Durmstrang was in Northern Scandinavia.

I have more extensive posts about this at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/28822
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/24956
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/20286

There may still be a tie-in with the Baltic region, however.  The 
school has a German name, while all students and teachers we have 
seen are of East-European origin (not Russian, from what I 
understand - there was a post about this a year or so ago, which I 
haven't been able to relocate) - this is reminiscent of the expansion 
of the Teutonic order into Eastern Central Europe.  

A possible theory is that Durmstrang was established in Southern 
Balticum by existing German schools of magic as an effort to bring 
ordered and formalised magic to the magical population in less 
developed areas, with more primitive forms of magic.  The school was 
subsequently forced to flee when the Teutonic Order started crusading 
heavily in the same area.  There was at the time already a culturally 
and politically significant centre at the Finnish Bay (near St. 
Petersburg), and the school was not allowed to settle as an 
independent school - it was given the alternative of students and 
staff becoming students and staff in existing institution, at the 
service of the resident rulers, or moving on.  The school then moved 
on northwards, settling very far North in sparsely populated regions 
to fulfill its charter - education of East-European students in the 
arts of magic for the raising of the standard of magic in their 
region.  

Of course, this being quite a few centuries ago, many things might 
have changed over the years, and the rather turbulent manner of 
founding might have meant that some members of faculty might have 
been lost on the road, and the schools view on what is or is not 
beneficial to teach as part of a general education in ars magica 
might have been influenced.

Best regards
Christian Stub?




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Sun Apr 28 21:41:17 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:41:17 -0000
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound
In-Reply-To: <146.d9d1b93.29fbeee9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aahq9u+if2t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38270

Woo?hoo! C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. sets sail once more with 
billowed cabbage!


L. Terrel Gould III wrote:


>"Pinching his nose, Harry drank the potion down in two large gulps. 
It tasted
>like overcooked cabbage."
>
>Ten points to anyone who knows what potion he's drinking! Oh, what 
the heck, I
>can't stand the suspense. It polyjuice potion! Hmmmmm............ 
maybe Mrs. A.
>Figg is in actuality a young, beautiful, and much-beloved-by-Snape 
protectress
>of Harry under the influence of polyjuice potion (now backed by 
canon?), much
>in the same prolonged way as Crouch Jr. 
>
>I will allow space here for your many "Aha!"s, applause, and the 
throwing of
>trinkets of your affection (chocolate is best).


Aaaaaand it's take?off! C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. magically 
transfigures into a high?teck, state?of?the?art hydroplane that takes 
to the skies niftily dodging all ca(n)nons sent it's way. Leroyal 
Terrel Gould, feeling that he's earned his rest after a good post's 
worth of stuffing cabbage leaves down all the holes and leaks, 
settles back in his first--class lounger as a crew of A.F.R.I.C.A.N. 
H.I.P.P.I.E.S. (Thanks Tabouli!) promptly scoot up to serve him a 
special-- order in?flight meal of high?quality, milk, alpine 
chocolate (try the caramel ones?they're delicious!).


Eeeeek! Suddenly the aircraft swerves violently to the left. 


Ali fired:


> Hagrid says:
> 
> "But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, 
> Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's. Black 
> argued, but in the end he gave in".


Phooey. There I was all happily nodding along to Cindy's Black Knew 
Where Harry Lived Due To Arabella's Pillow Talk and ping! A lousy ca
(n)non zips past my nose and clips off the tail?wings.


Cindy defented her theory bravely but. . . Aw, Cindy. I just don't 
know how to break this to you but I'm, err, I'm afraid that we're 
just going to have to, err, well, you know <very quickly> chuck the 
whole idea out of the window, really. <flinch> Captain (remembering 
Cindy is Tough and not really quite sure about that look in her 
eye): "Come on, Cindy. . . don't, don't glare at me like that . . . 
it's for the common good. . . look, <defensively> get a hold of 
yourself, will you! It just didn't fly Cindy, it didn't fly!


See, the main problem with the Pillow Talk Theory is that if Sirius 
really did run straight to his old flame Arabella as soon as he 
escaped from Azkaban and if Arabella really had heard him out, then 
why didn't she simply put him on a leash, trot over to the Weasleys 
for a visit and ask to see their rat? She must have known him pretty 
well after all. Surely she didn't believe that he could actually 
handle the situation on his own, did she?!


On top of that, Azkaban!Sirius doesn't really strike me as being in 
an extremely wooing?long?lost?loves mode, to tell you the truth. I 
mean he's all in this PTSD, grief?riddled, guilt?ridden, obsessive--
broken--man--in--dire--need--of--a--shower--and?haircut mess. So, 
much as I love the Pillow Talk idea, I'm guessing that he wouldn't 
really be, well, err?hem, up to it. And, yeah, Sirius does have a one?
track mind, but sometimes a man's just got more presing matters to 
attend. But of course he wasn't completely oblivious to her close 
presence, which was how he came to be prowling round her house at No 
2 Magnolia Crescent hoping to catch a glimpse of her through the 
window.


Tell you what we definitely do have here though. We have the obvious 
answer to Sirius's curiously fuzzy choice of name for his canine 
alias. It was Arabella's cute little hypocorism for him, see. In the 
cold, terror?struck years of Voldemort's era only one place remains 
cozy and warm: Through the closed door of the Blacks' bedroom a 
girlish giggle rings out: "Ooooh, Snuffles! That tickles!"



Eloise:
> Mmm.....Perhaps this *is* the reason for her lonely exile. Sirius 
is 
> arrested. Arabella is heartbroken and can't live with the looks she 
gets as 
> the despised lover of that dangerous criminal, Sirius Black, so she 
turns her 
> back on the wizarding world and, known only to Dumbledore (and the 
hair 
> donor) goes to do what she can to protect her beloved's godson. I 
mean, it's 
> a pretty big thing she's done, isn't it?


Bull's?eye! Exactly. And it wasn't only the cold?shouldering she had 
to put up with either. Her wounds run much deeper than that. Internal 
angst and conflict are the real hounding torment she flees from in 
vain. Guilt. Regret. And not to mention -- Disillusionment. What had 
the Wizarding world offered her? Nothing but grief and loss. 11 years 
under a Dark Lord's reign at the end of which all the total sum?up 
runs thus: Lily and James ? dead. Little Peter ? dead. Sirius Black ? 
a murdering spy, Severus Snape ? Death Eater! Is nobody safe! So, 
when the wizading world turns it's back on her, she turns her back on 
the wizarding world. "Contra Mundum!" she howls dramatically before 
retiring to Muggledom. She agrees to watch over Harry though, much 
for the same reason Sirius returns to Britain to be near him: got to 
fulfil her duty as godmother. They're a good couple that way.


But, yeah. What about that hair?donor then? Hmmm. <Charis busily 
scrounges through Canon.> What we need is an elderly witch of whom 
Harry has heard but not however yet seen. . . A?ha! Yes! That's it! 
Great?Auntie Enid.


Aaaah. . . So here lies the real reason behind Snape's unreasonable 
spitefulness against Neville! He's jealous, don't you know. Full of 
rancour against Auntie Enid for all the time she gets to spend with 
his beloved Arabella. And since, as we know, Snape has no quibbles 
about visiting the sins of the parents (or great?aunts) on the 
children, he takes it all out on the unfortunate Neville. Besides 
Neville himself is gravely at fault here too. I mean, he practically 
grew up in constant contact with a morphed Arabella regularly over at 
the Longbottoms for her fix -- while Snape swept menacingly around in 
cold, underground dungeons all by himself. . . Grrrr!


See, after Voldemort's fall Snape should have had it made. The 
hypocrite Black had conveniently gone and proven himself a traitor 
and a killer breaking Arabella's heart. What * should* then have 
followed was that she, realizing what an atrocious mistake she had 
made, would fling herself into his own willing arms imploring for 
forgiveness and begging him to accept her. What really * did* happen 
of course was that Arabella, disgusted at him for being a DE, 
embittered against the whole wizarding race and really a strong woman 
anyway who can deal with her own problems by herself thank--you--very-
-much, refused to ever set eyes on him again preferring to associate 
with none except those fumbling fools, the Londbottoms. Boo.


As proof of this obviously invincible assumption I offer Snape's 
otherwise inexplicable (;--)) resentment of the Boggart/ Grandmother 
incident. They are deriding him! Implying that only rigged up as a 
dreadful old lady with a vulture hat could he ever secure Bella's 
interest! The cheek of it.

Laura lamented:


>...perhaps violent isn't the best word to describe it...I just 
want...Edge! 
> That's what I want. A female character (preferably quite evil) with 
her own
> let-me-take-over-the-world-so-others-will-have-to-give-me-pedicures-
with-their-t\
> eeth schmaz.

You're forgetting Mrs Lestrange.


Charis Julia astounds all by actually quoting some Canon: "The Dark 
Lord will rise again, Crouch! Throw us into Azkaban, we will wait! He 
will rise again and will come for us, he will reward us beyond any of 
his other supporters!"


So, yeah, OK, she's relying on Voldemort for her share of glory and 
world?domination ? but, hey, how many Evil Overlords can one fit into 
a single series? And really, you can hardly hold she's not * 
enterprising* at least. Edge? Gee, I don't know. Too early on to tell 
really. Though to tell you the truth she strikes me more as being 
rather * off* the Edge than having it. . . Hmmm, can one actually 
have Edge and be Evil simultaneously? Wouldn't the one cancel the 
other out? Dunno. 


L, Terrell Gould:

>just a suggestion.... Sometimes a dark and brooding bat persona,
>is just a dark and brooding bat persona....

Please, Terrell, don't let's be absurd! Tut! The ideas some people * 
do* come up with!


Charis Julia, who really must stop undermining her own perfectly 
acceptable theories through ridiculous elaborations.





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Mon Apr 29 02:20:48 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 22:20:48 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER on the rebound
References: <aahq9u+if2t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001801c1ef24$7a49c2c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38271

<snip my moaning about a female character with Edge>

Charis Julia:
>You're forgetting Mrs Lestrange.
<snip quote of Mrs. Lestrange in the Pensieve scene>

Mmm..yes.  But I wonder if she will really play that large a role in the books.  Hmmm..  She is rather sparkly isn't she?  I don't suppose JKR would have highlighted her specifically in the Pensieve scene if she didn't plan to give her a larger role in the books.  Ho hum.  I hope so.  She was exciting. 

Charis Julia again:
>Hmmm, can one actually have Edge and be Evil 
>simultaneously? Wouldn't the one cancel the 
>other out? Dunno. 

Oh, of course! *pauses* Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of "Edge".  I mean, there can certainly be Evilness without Edge *and* Edge without Evilness...but I think that they could coexist as well.

I guess I define Edge as that certain dangerous, different sort of Spark that exists in the most interesting Heroes *and* Villains..Crouch Jr., for instance, is sort of Edgy to me...however Wormtail wouldn't know Edge if it striped naked and danced the Macarena for him. Conversely, Lupin is the classic example of Edge, while Arthur Weasley hasn't got it at all.

To me, Edge has nothing to do with morals and ideals, but everything to do personality -- and we all know that every personality has its own positive and negative aspects -- that people with very similar personalities can be as different as night and day when it comes to their morals.

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Apr 29 02:49:36 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 02:49:36 -0000
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER  & Fourth Man Variants 
In-Reply-To: <aahq9u+if2t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaicc0+pdcm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38272

Charis Julia wrote:

> See, the main problem with the Pillow Talk Theory is that if Sirius 
> really did run straight to his old flame Arabella as soon as he 
> escaped from Azkaban and if Arabella really had heard him out, then 
> why didn't she simply put him on a leash, trot over to the Weasleys 
> for a visit and ask to see their rat? 

Boy, that Sirius and Arabella Pillow Talk idea sure did stink the 
place up, eh?  Yes.  Well.  It was a test, see.  I wanted to make 
sure everyone understood that, uh, these theories are clever and all, 
but they, er, have to make *sense*. Canon and all, don't ya know.  
Yes, very good.  You all pass.

The only way the Pillow Talk idea works is if, uh, there wasn't a 
whole lot of *talking* going on between Sirius and Arabella.  You 
know what I mean there.  I mean, you're not going to make me *say* 
it, are you?  I don't think Sirius is that kind of guy.  Sirius is a 
Dead Sexy Gentlemen.  

So we are left with . . . well . . . nothing really.  Boy, this is so 
embarrassing.

Can't we talk about something else?  Like LOLLIPOPS?  Trapezoid?  
Anything?

************

OK, how about this?  I'm not quite finished with Fourth Man.  You 
remember Fourth Man, don't you?  Uh, how would I describe Fourth 
Man?  Um.  Geez, where *are* the Fourth Man experts when you need 
them?  Me, I majored in ToadKeeper with a minor in Banging.  I'm not 
too good with basic Fourth Man.  

OK.  There is that Fourth Man in the Pensieve scene, and he is never 
named.  And there's Avery.  And uh, based on astounding and detailed 
canon analysis, an alert list member has proposed that Avery is the 
Fourth Man in the Pensieve scene.  

<deep breath>

Gee, this is hopeless.  Anybody mind if I just cut and paste big 
chunk of stuff by someone who *is* quite an expert on Fourth Man?  
No?  OK, then.  Those on a first-name basis with Fourth Man can skip 
this section and go to the next big line of those little star things:

**************

Elkins wrote (eons ago in Message 36,473):

>I also find the Fourth Man's utter anonymity in the text highly 
>suspicious. Why *does* he go unnamed throughout Book Four? The 
>reader is certainly encouraged to be interested in the Longbottom 
>Affair. We are given (or at least believe ourselves to have been 
>given) the names of the other three defendents. So why should the 
>identity of that Fourth Man remain so strangely hidden from view?

>Could it be because his identity is intended to come as a surprise 
>when it *is* finally revealed to us?

>Could the Fourth Man in fact be a character we have seen...and yet 
>not seen? Is there a character who seems unusually strongly 
>emphasized by the text, and yet has no seeming narrative *function?* 
>A character that we as readers have been actively encouraged to pay 
>attention to and to remember, but who nonetheless seems to have no 
>strong connection to anything else within the story? A character 
>who although he has indeed appeared, has yet remained so utterly 
>lacking in any form of physical description that he really could be 
>just about *anyone?* A character whose face and normal speaking 
>voice have been obscured both from both Harry's view and from our 
>own? 

>Is there a character who has a name, but neither face nor role -- 
>just as the Fourth Man has both a face and a role...but no name?

>The "Fourth Man" theory, outlined in message #35062, proposes that 
>the mysterious Fourth Man in the Pensive scene was actually Avery, 

<snip>

>It further proposes that after his release from Azkaban, Avery 
>shunned Dark activities, severed all connections with his former DE 
>colleagues, and *certainly* made no effort at all to seek out 
>Voldemort. This, claims Fourth Man, is the reason that Avery arrives 
>at the graveyard in such a highly nervous condition, and the reason 
>that he cracks so quickly once Voldemort starts accusing his Death 
>Eaters of ideological infidelity. 

********************

Still with me?  Elkins has come up with four variants of Fourth Man 
(although I was never sure exactly which one she prefers; perhaps she 
is playing the field there):  

No Frills Fourth Man (a venal and villainous coward); 

Fourth Man with Remorse (Avery feels truly repentent about his DE 
past);

Fourth Man With Imperius (Avery really *did* spend much of his time 
as a Death Eater under the Imperius Curse);

Fourth Man With Innocence (Avery was innocent in the Longbottom 
torture entirely and should learn to pick his friends better). 

>From time to time, I have challenged these Fourth Man Variants.  You 
know, kind nibbled at them around the edges.  Like, I proposed "In 
Over His Head Fourth Man," which posits that Avery is basically an 
incompetent DE.  But that variant accepts Elkins' basic Fourth Man 
premise:  that Avery is fundamentally weak and fragile, either having 
remorse, acting under Imperius, or (heaven help us) is innocent.

But now I think the time has come for a full frontal assault on all 
weak-kneed Fourth Man variants.  See, it is certainly possible that 
Avery's collapse in the graveyard is because Avery is a SYCOPHANT 
("The Society for Yes-men, Cowards, Ostriches, Passive-aggressives, 
Hysterics, Abject Neurotics, and Toadying SYCOPHANTS").  Yeah.  
Maybe.  

But that idea isn't very Bangy, though, is it?  I examine these 
SYCOPHANT Avery theories, and all of them belong in a middling soap 
opera.  Lots of crying, hand-wringing and sweating.  Hardly big-
screen stuff.  

I mean, wouldn't it be *better* if Avery were Voldemort's Number 
Two?  You know, the guy who gets to carry Voldemort's wand.  Somebody 
Important.  Then Avery's actions in the graveyard make more sense.  

After all, what happens in the graveyard?  Voldemort professes 
himself "disappointed."  Then:

"One of the men suddenly flung himself forward, breaking the circle.  
Trembling from head to foot, he collapsed at Voldemort's 
feet.  "Master!" he shrieked, "Master, forgive me!  Forgive us all!"
... "Get up, Avery," said Voldemort softly.  "Stand up.  You ask for 
forgiveness?  I do not forgive.  I do not forget.  Thirteen long 
years . . . I want thirteen years repayment before I forgive 
you . . . "

What exactly was Avery doing there?  Collapsing because he is weak 
and guilt-ridden?  

Or could it be that Avery is the head DE?  After all, he doesn't just 
plead his own case.  In the middle of this little display, he 
shrieks "Forgive us all!"  After this, Voldemort takes mercy on 
Wormtail and doesn't torture anyone else.  Why would Voldemort go 
easy on Lucius in particular, when Voldemort knows Lucius and Avery 
handled Voldemort's downfall in the same exact way -- pleading 
Imperius?  So Avery's little self-sacrifice ploy worked, didn't it?  

I think Avery could well be Strong and Tough and Committed.  Willing 
to take one for the team.  Willing to take one good long Cruciatus 
Curse if it will spare his men the same.  Avery isn't a SYCOPHANT at 
all.  He's a Tough guy.  A hero among DEs, in a twisted "working for 
Evil" kind of way.

I think we need a new, non-SYCOPHANT Fourth Man Variant -- Tough Guy 
Fourth Man, based on Avery's successful plea that his fellow DEs 
should receive mercy.  

Oh, I know what you're thinking.  How can we have Tough Guy Fourth 
Man if he is quiet in the Pensieve scene and lets Mrs. Lestrange 
speak for the group?  Why doesn't he say something for himself?  

Well, Tough Guy Fourth Man is also quite smart.  Number Two guys in 
the Evil Overlord organization are *always* smart, aren't they?  He's 
not going to shoot off his mouth in the Pensieve scene.  How does 
that do Voldemort or anyone else any good?  No, Fourth Man is already 
plotting his release from Azkaban on an Imperius defense.  So he 
knows anything he says can and will be used against him.  Tough Guy 
Fourth Man is downright cagey.  Cunning, really.

So, can I have Tough Guy Fourth Man?  Please?  Can I?

Cindy (thinking there ought to be even more Fourth Man variants out 
there)




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Mon Apr 29 03:49:57 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:49:57 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron's prejudices (Was: prejudice in the WW (was: If I had to choose...)
In-Reply-To: <aahi0g+3qrb@eGroups.com>
References: <aahi0g+3qrb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <104894041530.20020428204957@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38273



Hi,

Sunday, April 28, 2002, 12:19:44 PM, jenny_ravenclaw wrote:

> This gives me a bad feeling about Ron.  Good things aren't coming his 
> way in the next few books.  What do others think?

Well, I hope things won't go too badly for Ron in the future
books.

While he has his little faults and prejudices like everyone
else, he also shows loyalty and strength.

>Ron is
>easily influenced by others.  IOW, he is rather weak.  The fact that
>he cannot fight the Imperius Curse is evidence of that to me.

I don't understand why Ron's inability to fight the
Imperious curse gets used as an argument against him.

The way I understood it, Harry was the *only* one who was
successful with that.
So everyone else, including Hermione would then be weak.

And I don't see Ron changing his mind every time he listens
to someone, so how exactly is he easily influenced by
others?

Even when mad at Harry, thinking Harry had lied to him, he
didn't turn against him in any other way besides not talking
to him.
No mean remarks, getting together with Harry's enemies, or
did I miss something?

While Ron was definitely wrong here, I still don't think
he'll turn against Harry at the first opportunity to get rich
or famous, like some people believe he would.

He does get influenced by his emotions a lot and has some
growing up to do, but so does pretty much everyone else.

Just because Hermione is different in that regard (though
she runs off crying, when her feelings get hurt,
occasionally, and panics in tense situations) doesn't mean
that all kids that age are the same.

Some grow up faster than others (Harry had to, for example,
but I'm not sure it was exactly emotionally healthy for him
to have to control his emotions so tightly, and only
occasionally "blow up").

I don't see Ron as generally mean, mostly his run-ins are
with Hermione and Draco.
Usually Ron seems like a pretty caring and loyal kid, with
just a few things that could use improvement, just like
Hermione, who could use a few lessons in timing and caring
behavior herself (all just my opinion, of course <g>).

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Mon Apr 29 04:10:30 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 04:10:30 -0000
Subject: Ron's prejudices (Was: prejudice in the WW (was: If I had to choose...)
In-Reply-To: <aahi0g+3qrb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaih3m+t2ta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38274

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" <meboriqua at a...> wrote:

<snipped Penny L's examples of her perceptions of negative behavior 
on Ron's part>


> You know, Penny, you are successfully making me like Ron quite a 
bit 
> less than I did a few months ago and my upcoming comments will 
reflect 
> that.  However, don't ever think I'll stop being a H/G SHIPper!
> 
> Ron definitely displays prejudices several times throughout the 
series 
> but I do not think he does so in the way, say Draco does.  Ron is 
> easily influenced by others.  IOW, he is rather weak.  The fact 
that 
> he cannot fight the Imperius Curse is evidence of that to me.

How is this an example of Ron's weakness? In GoF it states very 
clearly that "*not one* of them seemed to be able to fight off the  
curse" in the DADA class.  That would, of course, include Hermione. 
Do you believe that she's also weak?  In fact, Barty Crouch, Sr. is 
described by Sirius as follows: "He's a great wizard, Barty Crouch, 
powerfully magical..."  Yet, it takes him many months to throw off 
the curse.
The same holds true for *real Moody*, who never does throw it off.  
Is he weak too?
The fact is that Harry is shown here to be unique in his ability to 
throw off the curse and this is a huge hint as to his exceptional 
powers.

I also strongly disagree that he is easily influenced by others.  If 
that were so, Hermione would be able to persuade him to among other 
things, buy into the idea that Snape is not really evil, or that 
SPEW is a really swell idea.  If anyone has a mind of his own, it's 
Ron (not that he's not wrong from time to time, but so are Harry and 
Hermione).
 

Jenny continues:
 When it 
> comes to prejudices, I feel that somewhere along the line when Ron 
was 
> much younger, he heard some arguments against werewolves and 
giants 
> (or maybe he simply heard what nearly everyone around him was 
saying) 
> and took those comments for fact without thinking them through for 
> himself.  Ron isn't one to question and is much more likely 
to "judge 
> a book by its cover", so to speak.  He's not strong enough to 
stand up 
> alone and express his views the way Hermione does. 


Ron not *strong* enough to stand up and express his views?  Are we 
reading the same books? <g> He's the one who stands up to Snape on 
Hermione's behalf, he's the one who was going to stand up to Fudge 
(his dad's boss!) on behalf of Buckbeak if Hermione hadn't stopped 
him.  Do you believe that, oh say, Grizzly bears are dangerous and 
not to be trusted, or is that rank anti-ursine prejudice?  The fact 
is that werewolves *are* dangerous, and apparently so are giants.  
The fact that there may be gentle grizzly bears in theory doesn't 
mean that one is prejudiced if he considers them very dangerous.  
Don't forget that the giants were allies of Voldemort during his 
last reign of terror. Ron is the only member of the trio who is 
truly knows the wizarding world from experience, and Harry badly 
needs his input on these matters.


Jenny again:
 He even holds 
> prejudices against girls who aren't pretty enough, like Eloise 
Midgen, 
> and instead gazes adoringly at the prettiest one around, even 
though 
> she may not be particularly nice, as apparently Fleur was not when 
Ron 
> asked her to the Yule Ball, or even when she snorted upon entering 
> Hogwarts.  He looks at things too much at face value.


Unlike Harry who yearns for the very plain Cho Chang? <g>  Sorry to 
say, but this is entirely typical of 14 year old boys (and even 
grown men, in many cases).


Jenny again:
> This gives me a bad feeling about Ron.  Good things aren't coming 
his 
> way in the next few books.  What do others think?


I'm afraid that it's obvious that I don't share your negative view 
of Ron.  I don't think that many good things are coming Harry and 
Hermione's way either in the next few books, but that's due to 
Voldy's return, not to their character flaws.  I'm sorry if this has 
seemed like a rant, but I'm always amazed at how many people are so 
quick to find fault with Ron's character in particular.  When I read 
the books, it's obvious to me that JKR is very fond of him and means 
for the reader to be as well.  He is one of the best-written 
characters in the books IMO, and the fact that he has some flaws 
only serves to make him human, and more lovable as a result.  I'm 
much more inclined to let Rowling influence my opinion of him than 
anyone else's interpretation.


Jo Serenadust, proud C.R.A.B. member





From Lanabana at aol.com  Mon Apr 29 01:15:08 2002
From: Lanabana at aol.com (Lanabana at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:15:08 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron's prejudices (Was: prejudice in the WW (was: If I had...
Message-ID: <172.7713f25.29fdf89c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38275

Penny says:

>  Ron is 
> easily influenced by others.  IOW, he is rather weak.  The fact that 
> he cannot fight the Imperius Curse is evidence of that to me. 

You are aware that Harry was the only one in the class who could fight the 
imperius curse correct?? And some of the best wizards apparently have been 
taken over by the Imperius Curse...So its not exactly fair to judge someone, 
particularly someone so young...as to whether they can fight it or not.

> He even holds 
>prejudices against girls who aren't pretty enough, like Eloise Midgen, 
>and instead gazes adoringly at the prettiest one around, even though 
>she may not be particularly nice, as apparently Fleur was not when Ron 
>asked her to the Yule Ball, or even when she snorted upon entering 
>Hogwarts.  He looks at things too much at face value.

Keep in mind this is a 14 year old boy we are talking about.....and my 
opinion on this is that Ron is immature!  Harry and Hermione are much more 
mature than him.  He says things a lot of times he probably doesn't 
mean....But we have seen Ron do a lot of brave things...a lot more than what 
would be expected of a boy his age...I don't think Ron will turn evil on us 
or anything....but he does have a lot of growing up to do.

"Lanabana"





From eb3g at ivillage.com  Mon Apr 29 02:04:03 2002
From: eb3g at ivillage.com (jillily3g)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 02:04:03 -0000
Subject: prejudice in the WW (was: If I had to choose...)
In-Reply-To: <014e01c1ee05$0c454d00$8bf54041@default>
Message-ID: <aai9mj+o04f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38276

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:

> Actually, I'd say Ron is the opposite of logical.  He's very 
emotionally-driven in my mind.  It's Hermione who's logical, but they 
are opposites in their approaches to problems or situations IMO.  

I think I agree with you--Ron does seem to "go with his gut" in most 
situations--but I'm wondering how he can be such a superior chess 
player and not be logical. Not being even a good chess player, I 
thought the strategic thinking involved required a great deal of 
logic. Or is this simply a case of someone having a skill or
knowledge he doesn't know how to apply? 

Beth





From katherinef at softhome.net  Sun Apr 28 19:43:30 2002
From: katherinef at softhome.net (Katherine F.)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:43:30 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Permission Slip/WW law
In-Reply-To: <aaep5i+rpda@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20020428135741.00a7ea38@192.168.0.10>

No: HPFGUIDX 38277

Nova wrote:
> > I can't imagine a situation where a child without a signed
> > permission slip from a parent/guardian would be allowed to attend
> > any sort of trip outside school grounds. If something were to
> > happen to him, they and Hogwarts would be held responsible.

And Catlady_de_los_angeles replied:
>That is VERY true in the USA Muggle world in which I live, but the UK
>Wizard world seems to be a LOT less litigious....

         Well, IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but my own memory of school
trips and a little digging on Google suggests that actually, this is
pretty standard for UK schools: while the children are on school
grounds, they're insured against accidents, and the school is in loco
parentis. Once the children leave school grounds, the school a) has
no control over what happens (okay, they don't have much control over
what happens *on* school grounds either, but in theory they could do)
and b) are not covered in the event of an accident. The school is
*still* in loco parentis, but the permission slip is a useful
ass-covering measure. Hogwarts being recognised as the children's
guardian is standard UK practice (though it's common law supported
by precedent, rather than legislation).

Catlady_de_los_angeles also said:
>Here in the USA Muggle world, even if the parent has signed a paper
>giving the school in loco parentis rights, the parent would sue the
>school if the student were killed on an outing, in sports, in class
>experiments, etc. In some cases the parents would win.

         That could happen in the UK too, but it would depend on
the circumstances. It's unlikely that such a case would ever go
to court unless there was good prima facie evidence of negligence.
Even then, Brits are generally less litigious than Americans.

Catlady_de_los_angeles continued:
> I believe that
>in the wizarding world, the parents wouldn't even think of suing
>Hogwarts for their child being killed at school: they would either
>accept it as part of the tragic sense of life or they would seek
>PERSONAL vengeance on whichever adult they considered at fault.

         Interesting thought strikes me here: *are* there lawyers
in the WW? There's obviously some sort of legal structure or there
couldn't have been trials, but, having consulted the relevant
chapter of GoF, I don't see any trace of legal representation of
the prisoners in the trials Harry witnessed via the Pensieve.
This may simply mean that wizards don't have lawyers; when a person
can be given Veritaserum to make them tell the absolute truth,
lawyers may simply be superfluous. Or it may mean that the right
to a legal counsel was temporarily suspended for the trials of
DEs (not an unlikely situation, given that the MoM authorised the
use of the Unforgivables against them).

-- 
http://puritybrown.diaryland.com/
Today's Quote: "If you have sex for the first time on the
astral plane while your body is on Earth, are you still a virgin?"
-- Hand-of-Omega, alt.games.white-wolf





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr 29 09:15:50 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:15:50 -0000
Subject: Ron's chess ability
In-Reply-To: <aai9mj+o04f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaj306+a0vi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38278

Beth wrote:
> I think I agree with you--Ron does seem to "go with his gut" in 
> most situations--but I'm wondering how he can be such a superior 
> chess player and not be logical. Not being even a good chess 
> player, I thought the strategic thinking involved required a great 
> deal of logic. Or is this simply a case of someone having a skill or
> knowledge he doesn't know how to apply? 
> 
> Beth

One of the major points in chess is to know when to sacrifice a piece 
for the greater good. I get to attached to my minions, finding it 
hard to sacrifice them, and it's one of the major reasons I'm not a 
good chess player(the other is that I cannot see to far ahead, much 
less plan). Ron has demonstrated that he's capable of both, and he's 
had loads of practice. You don't really need to be logical to play 
chess: only if you're a computer, and have large amounts of 
(relative) time to think, you can just think of every possibility. If 
not, you've got to trust your own knowledge and "play by heart" 
(instinct, if you like, or just a sense of strategy developed over 
hundreds of games). Ron is GOOD at that.

Which leads me to believe that Ron is going to be one of the major 
planners in the war against V in book 7, and he's going to realize 
that a piece needs to be sacrified: himself (maybe as a bait), just 
as he did in book 1 with his chess knight. That act of heroism would, 
of course, put him forever over all his brothers, getting his wish 
fullfilled (RICK'S THE BOSS: Ron Identified with the Chess Knight: 
Surpasses his Triumfant, Heroic or Excellent Brothers Only by Self-
Sacrifice, my pet theory).

This means that HAGRID WANTS BRASS DRAGONS AS PETS is wrong, since 
Ron doesn't need seer abilities to triumph, but I just created the 
acronym, I never defended the theory...

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Apr 29 09:36:43 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:36:43 -0000
Subject: Peter's escape spells
In-Reply-To: <aahgg0+l7md@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaj47b+314s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38279


finwitch wrote:
> But that's not *true*. Peter Pettigrew managed to kill 12 Muggles 
> with a *single* AK or that's how I read the descriptions of it - 

catlady_de_los_angeles "cat" answered:
> I can't believe that the curse that Peter used was AK. When we have 
> seen AK work (on Frank Bryce, on Cedric), there was no explosion 
> at all. Peter's curse caused an explosion. Personally, I suspect 
> it WAS a gas explosion: one easy way to blow up a street and all 
> the people in it is to Curse the gas main under the street.

Neither do I. Whatever Peter used had to be shieldable, unlike AK, 
since he used it on himself (that's how I see it). The sequence would 
go like this: He shields himself, shouts all the talk about 
the "traiterous!Sirius", creates the explosion around him (maybe a 
real gas explosion, maybe a spell we don't know about yet), with a 
good "bang" and a good deal of dust. He's unscathed, but around him a 
dozen Muggles are dead. While the dust settles, he get's out a knife, 
cut's his finger, takes off his shirt, bloodies it and drops both to 
the ground. He changes into a rat and escapes through the suddenly 
revealed sewers in the midst of a throng of scared (normal) rats. 
Sirius closes on the hole to look for him and finds the clothes and 
finger. The pressure has built up for the hole day, and now the 
ironic situation hits him: he starts to laugh, hysterically, with 
Peter's ragged shirt in his hand. He is found by the MoM officials, 
and taken prisoner.

The theory needs probably a little bit of detailing, but that's the 
broad outline. Feel free to disagree.

> Does anyone else itch to make AK-47 puns?

Now, I do! Damn you, cat! Someday, I'll introduce you to my fangs. 
Grooowl! ;-)

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf




From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Apr 29 11:28:44 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:28:44 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] WW law/ Fourth Man
Message-ID: <190.637fd5c.29fe886c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38280

Katherine:
>          Interesting thought strikes me here: *are* there lawyers
> in the WW? There's obviously some sort of legal structure or there
> couldn't have been trials, but, having consulted the relevant
> chapter of GoF, I don't see any trace of legal representation of
> the prisoners in the trials Harry witnessed via the Pensieve.
> This may simply mean that wizards don't have lawyers; when a person
> can be given Veritaserum to make them tell the absolute truth,
> lawyers may simply be superfluous. Or it may mean that the right
> to a legal counsel was temporarily suspended for the trials of
> DEs (not an unlikely situation, given that the MoM authorised the
> use of the Unforgivables against them).
> 

It *is* an interesting question, although I don't think we can answer it from 
the evidence of the Pensieve scenes.
Karkaroff is already convicted and has been brought from Azkaban to give 
information which he hopes will get him let off.
Bagman has also already apparently been found guilty and has returned for 
sentencing.
The same also perhaps applies to the four accused in the Longbottom affair. 
JKR uses rather confusing language. Crouch says that they are *accused* 
rather than *found guilty* of the crimes, but then clearly goes on to 
sentence. I suppose that possibly they were not tried, as happened in Sirius' 
case, but I have always supposed, on the basis of the Bagman scene, that the 
evidence had already been heard.

The WW seems to have a rather medieval way of going on about things. I 
wouldn't on that basis expect lawyers (at least, not defence lawyers) in our 
modern sense, but I would expect that the accused might have some kind of 
supporter, a 'prisoner's friend' sort of thing. There presumably has to be 
some kind of mechanism by which the accused can defend himself, call 
witnesses,etc, which would be pretty difficult from inside Azkaban.

And we know absolutely nothing about the way civil cases might be conducted. 
So far we've only seen the equivalent (possibly) of Crown prosecutions. Is 
there, indeed, a legal mechanism for gaining redress in the case of a 
personal dispute?

The only other quasi-legal incident we've seen (IIRC) is the case of Buckbeak 
being brought before the Commitee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures. 
There, Hagrid had to make his own defence on behalf of Buckbeak.

............................................

Cindy:
> OK, how about this?  I'm not quite finished with Fourth Man.  You 
> remember Fourth Man, don't you?  Uh, how would I describe Fourth 
> Man?  Um.  Geez, where *are* the Fourth Man experts when you need 
> them?  Me, I majored in ToadKeeper with a minor in Banging.  I'm not 
> too good with basic Fourth Man.  

I take it the word banging doesn't have the same connotations in the US as it 
does here? Or are you referring to what Sirius and Arabella have been up to? 
;-)

<snip explanation of Fourth Man>

> 
> Or could it be that Avery is the head DE?  After all, he doesn't just 
> plead his own case.  In the middle of this little display, he 
> shrieks "Forgive us all!"  After this, Voldemort takes mercy on 
> Wormtail and doesn't torture anyone else.  Why would Voldemort go 
> easy on Lucius in particular, when Voldemort knows Lucius and Avery 
> handled Voldemort's downfall in the same exact way -- pleading 
> Imperius?  So Avery's little self-sacrifice ploy worked, didn't it?  
> 
> <snip>

> I think we need a new, non-SYCOPHANT Fourth Man Variant -- Tough Guy 
> Fourth Man, based on Avery's successful plea that his fellow DEs 
> should receive mercy.  
> <snip>
> Well, Tough Guy Fourth Man is also quite smart.  Number Two guys in 
> the Evil Overlord organization are *always* smart, aren't they?  He's 
> not going to shoot off his mouth in the Pensieve scene.  How does 
> that do Voldemort or anyone else any good?  No, Fourth Man is already 
> plotting his release from Azkaban on an Imperius defense.  So he 
> knows anything he says can and will be used against him.  Tough Guy 
> Fourth Man is downright cagey.  Cunning, really.
> 
> So, can I have Tough Guy Fourth Man?  Please?  

But is he really being Tough, Tough in a DE sense? Sure, we can make him out 
to be noble and self-sacrificing in the graveyard. But *are* Tough DEs noble 
and self-sacrificing? I tend to think not. The most noble and 
self-sacrificing thing we've seen a DE do so far is Wormtail cutting off his 
hand and not everyone thinks even *that's* Tough. (For the record, I have to 
agree with the person who said that they couldn't do it if their life 
depended on it.) If he's all that cunning, isn't he going to let someone else 
get the rap? Are his fellow DEs really going to respect him as No 1 Henchman 
because he allows Voldemort to punish him? The reverse, I'd have thought.

Surely the point about being a DE is that you're loyal to Voldemort, beyond 
anything or anyone else. If he's Strong and Tough and Committed, (as I 
unfortunately snipped), why doesn't he endure Azkaban, like the Lestranges, 
or having got himself out by a cowardly cry of Imperius, why hasn't *he* done 
something about trying to rescue Voldemort?

Nah. In Over His Head Fourth Man works much better for me. In Over the Top 
Fourth Man might just be Noble and Self Sacrificing; he's reading the wrong 
script. He has a certain amount of pathos as well, which I quite like.

Let's talk about that trapezoid, instead. :-)

Eloise



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From katgirl at lava.net  Mon Apr 29 08:13:21 2002
From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:13:21 -0000
Subject: Voldemort good?
In-Reply-To: <aah5ef+b9ho@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaivb1+e84q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38281

Quote Finwitch:
> Will Sirius get free, will Wormtail save Harry's life, both or 
something 
> else? I *do* hope Sirius gets free in the 5th book...

I doubt Sirius will be free until book 7. (provided he lives that 
long) It's just a kind of a pattern; There is a talk with Dumbledore 
at the end of the year; There is a new DADA teacher each year; And 
Sirius will not be freed any time in the near future.

Sirius only broke out in PoA, and he spends a year after breaking out 
saving Harry from Wormtail. This helps a bit with Sirius's problems, 
but it helps with Wormtail's as well. (I'll be comparing them because 
neither of them will be able to walk the streets freely until and 
unless their side wins.)

Sirius has Crookshanks, Ron, Hermione, Harry, Dumbledore, Remus, and 
Buckbeak. He might have been able to do some work towards clearing 
his name while travelling all over England, but I doubt this. 
Wormtail is searching for Voldemort. Sirius is further ahead, but it 
won't be staying that way for long.

At the start of GoF, Wormtail has reunited with Voldemort. (He was 
pretty quick in finding Voldemort-I wonder why? Is his speed 
important?) Meanwhile, Sirius and Buckbeak are hiding in a tropical 
place, and Sirius is probably doing some important work towards 
proving his innocence. But when Harry's first letter reaches him, he 
probably starts focusing more on problems with Voldemort.

I'm sure Sirius would have kept in touch with Dumbledore and Lupin, 
and maybe one of them mentioned that they had noticed something 
suspicious. Maybe he was just worried about Harry. But either way, he 
decides to go north. We lose track for most of the book what happens, 
besides the fact that Sirius comes north. We also lose track of 
Wormtail and Voldemort's doings. Then, right before the first task, 
Sirius resurfaces to give Harry advice. He breaks into a wizarding 
house-not good, as this might be traced back to him. He's also being 
searched for up north. However, coming back also gives him a chance 
to get the Daily Prophet, as well as listen to some of Hogsmeade's 
gossip, which may be important and is almost certainly enjoyable. 
He's obviously near Hogwarts as well, which is also good.

Skip ahead to Chapter 32. Voldemort rises again, rallies the Death 
Eaters to him, and Wormtail redeems himself to Voldemort. MAJOR step 
forward for Wormtail, not to mention Voldemort and the Death Eaters.

Chapter 36 now. Sirius's existance is made known to Bill, Mrs. 
Weasely, Snape, and possibly McGonagall and Pomfrey. This is 3-maybe 
5-more people who know he's innocent. Well, technically Bill and Mrs. 
Weasely don't know yet, but Ron is going to tell them, and maybe even 
tell the whole Weasely family. Another victory. But this, and a lot 
of Sirius's steps, is counteraffected by Fudge's falling out with 
Dumbledore. When Sirius decides to make himself known and get a 
trial, this is going to have a serious weighing on the outcome, even 
if there is a new Minister. (And remember, Saint Lucius took Saint 
Cornelius's place.)

All in all, Sirius has managed to gain the trust of several people 
and a possible bias with the courts because of Fudge's reaction. 
Wormtail has been reunited with the Dark Side, which, unfortunately, 
has the upper hand right now.

So I doubt he'll be free in Book 5. Even if I'm wrong, he might take 
a while to get sufficient money and housing to support Harry and 
himself. Though, if we're lucky, he'll be able to stay with a member 
of the order, or there will be apartments for those in the Order who 
live far away from Hogwarts, but unless we get this loophole, Harry 
will be living with the Dursleys for a while.

"booklovinggirl" 




From mike_wiltse at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 29 08:08:09 2002
From: mike_wiltse at yahoo.com (mike_wiltse)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:08:09 -0000
Subject: underage wizards doing magic, family protection
In-Reply-To: <aa3ur2+o0j7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaiv19+e7uv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38282

> As far as Harry's family protection goes, though, in spite of the 
> supposed need of this, he lived for some time in the Leaky Cauldron 
> at the end of the summer before his third year.  How did family 
ties 
> help him there?
> 
> --Barb

At that time they were hiding him from Sirius not V, since Sirus is 
his Godfather, which may or may not have some magical properties tied 
to the title, the family bond may not have been sufficient 
protection.  Sending him to a place where he could be watched over, 
possibly by an entire group of wizards, (Aurors , or possibly the 
unspeakables)24 hours a day seems predent to me.  And I doubt Harry 
would have noticed them even if he met them.

I cant remember if quotes are aloud but

"Room eleven's free, Harry," said Fudge. "I think you'll be very
comfortable. just one thing, and I'm sure you'll understand... I don't
want you wandering off into Muggle London, all right? Keep to Diagon
Alley. And you're to be back here before dark each night. Sure you'll
understand. Tom will be keeping an eye on you for me."
PoA C3 page 38ish (very end of the chapter)

Like I said before, I doubt Tom was the only one watching out for 
him.  In fact knowing Fudge he may have been using Harry as bait.  I 
imagine it would be a lot easier to hide a bunch of wizards in Diagon 
alley than on Privot drive.

> That's unclear. The first thing Fudge tells him is that "they" (the 
> Ministry, I think) were worried about him running away from the 
> Dursleys, so perhaps Vernon and Petunia were given strict 
> instructions to inform the Ministry through some means as yet 
> unknown if Harry ever did such a thing (since he's may be immune 
> from someone taking him against his will when he's on Privet Drive) 

Although I agree that the spells Dumbledore set up to guard Harry 
were based off "Family Protection" He must have set up several other 
wards.  If Arabella Figg, is really the same Mrs Figg who lives near 
Harry and not just a coincidence, she may be the one who monitors 
Harry, when he leaves the house an alarm sounds and she looks in on 
him.  Considering that the ward must have a pretty wide range of 
protection, he did after all go to elementry school, walked around 
the neighborhood, and stayed at Mrs Figgs while under its 
protection.  I imagine it was a protection based on him not the house 
since he would still be under there protection even if he wasnt in 
the house.

Magic being used in the vacinity would most likly set of the alarm 
also, and since Dobby seems to be able to make himself invisible to 
anyone he doesnt want seeing him, it would have looked like Harry was 
doing the charm himself. 

"Mike Wiltse"





From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 29 12:16:35 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:16:35 -0000
Subject: Wizards at War, snappier 7th son acronym
In-Reply-To: <001501c1ee6c$f3399380$b734c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <aajdj3+ff3n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38283

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
<snip>
> 
> In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the Wizards, 
if cunning enough strategists, could probably win a Muggles vs 
Wizards war.  And what then?  This is always the thing with those 
Evil Overlords.  If they *did* take over the world, what would they 
do with it?  What sort of regime would Voldemort maintain?
> 
> Now there's a nasty speculation.  Any thoughts?
> 

Regarding a Muggles vs. Wizards war, my opinion is that the Wizards 
will win, and very easily. Unless a Muggle manages sneak up on a 
wizard, or unless the wizard is comatose, Muggles simply can't harm a 
(fully qualified) wizard. The ability to Disapparate alone ensures 
it. Or, imagine that all the wizard population goes into Hogwarts and 
Diagon Alley - how can you wage war and try to capture a place that 
doesn't exist as far as you're concerned?
 
Voldemort, I'm sure, is not interested at all in "taking over" the 
Muggle world. He has fun torturing Muggles, yes. But the Muggle world 
has nothing to offer him otherwise. It's only other wizards that are 
any threat, and therefore, any challenge for him. 
However, if Voldemort takes over the wizard world, Muggles would be, 
in consequence, terrorized, enslaved and treated much like the Nazies 
treated the "inferior races" they conquered. We don't know the extent 
of Voldemort's hatred of Muggles - is he interested in exterminating 
the lot of them? Would he prefer to keep them alive so he can relish 
in their misery? We don't know, and I'm not sure it's going to be an 
issue in the books. JKR seems to be focusing on the inner WW racism 
against Muggleborns.


Naama

 




From reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Apr 28 20:38:11 2002
From: reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk (reepicheepuk)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:38:11 -0000
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again
In-Reply-To: <aa87gf+1k60@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aahmjj+n6oa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38284

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "linda_mccabe" <lmccabe at s...> wrote:
> [JKR]can't just 
> leave it as Hermione's SPEW buttons in their fourth year which had 
> little or no impact on anyone.

This is exactly what bugs me here. JKR's description of SPEW is so 
obviously making fun of poor Hermione's efforts that I find it hard 
to match with the very noble ideas connected with her trteatment of 
Mudbloods or the events at the Quidditch World Cup. It is so obvious 
that not only poor brainwashed Winky but also "free" Dobby has not 
even remotely grasped the idea of freedom, and especially the house-
elves at Hogwarts are so blatantly happy with their situation that it 
seems really hard to see them as suppressed underdogs. (Of course, 
remembering >Malcolm X's "house negroes", they may just be happy 
because they don't know any better.) Perhaps the concept of 
some "symbiotic" bond between house elves and wizards is quite a good 
idea after all. The folk tales on which the house elves are evidently 
created usually don't ask complicated questions like these, anyway. 
There are just benevolent spirits attached to certain places or 
families doing their best to help whenever they can. And indeed there 
are some tales where the spirits have to leave when they are offered 
rewards for their services.
Whether this concept is a valuable one from a pedagogical point of 
view, is of course, a very different question. Why not just admit 
that a great writer can also create tless-than-perfect things in her 
world?
Reepicheep






From reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Apr 28 20:09:25 2002
From: reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk (reepicheepuk)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:09:25 -0000
Subject: Ginny's name
In-Reply-To: <aaclfe+li5c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aahktl+gf4r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38285

--- In HPforGrownups at y> Alina wrote:
["Ginny" is taken to be]Virginia ...

This is probably the first name that comes to the average person's 
mind. However, I feel that Guinevere (or even Gwynhwyvar) sounds a 
lot more magic. After all, wizards keep swearing by Merlin, don't 
they. And it would be a lot nicer and more mysterious, wouldn't it? 
It will be interesting to hear more opinions on this one.

Reepicheep
"The light at the end of the tunnes is the headlight of an oncaoming 
train." (Murphy's laws)





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Mon Apr 29 14:01:09 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:01:09 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's chess ability
References: <aaj306+a0vi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002b01c1ef86$50583a20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38286

Grey Wolf:
>Which leads me to believe that Ron is going to be one of the major 
>planners in the war against V in book 7, and he's going to realize 
>that a piece needs to be sacrified: himself <snippage>

I don't think it'd be in character for Ron to take over the planning part of the Trio's endeavors.  So far, that's been pretty much Hermione's forte, and she's done a good job at it and really doesn't need replacement.

Perhaps if Hermione is killed or otherwise incapacitated, Ron may be forced to take over a planning role **is very suspicious that JKR is going to kill Hermione**, however, I think it's more in character for Harry to step into this role.

Think of the CoS, when Ginny is captured and Hermione is petrified (and therefore unable guide the boys) -- Harry is definitely the one taking the initiative there.  I'm not saying that Ron wasn't totally gung-ho to save his sister, just that Harry was definitely in the lead.

Come to think of it, perhaps that's why so many people (including me) get the innate feeling that Ron is "weak".  Because it's Hermione and Harry that usually take up the lead.  With the exception, of course, of the Giant Chess scene, which sticks out like a sore thumb..However, neither Harry nor Hermione were really experienced with chess, so that means the Ron only took over because the other two were incapable of it.

And it's unlikely that we'll see Ron stranded and taking the lead in the Voldemort situation, because everything is from Harry's POV.

Unless Harry and Hermione were tied to stakes and being forced to watch Ron bargain for their lives..or a similar scenario.

The point is, I think the planning/leading role will most likely fall to Hermione in the Voldemort battle, with Harry carrying out the plan with Ron and possibly Hermione backing him up.  This pattern fits with the canon we have so far -- In fact, it's exactly what happens with the whole Polyjuice Potion thing in CoS.

Notice that whenever the Trio are debating something, Hermione's opinion of the appropriate course of action almost always wins out.  Ron argues against her points quite hotly, of course -- but it never seems to get him anywhere.  Harry might follow his advice for a short while (during which the reader is expected to feel that he is seriously misguided), but ultimately he either takes Hermione's opinion or his own.

However, I do feel that JKR is planning to give Ron something special to do in the upcoming battle -- I just am not sure of what.

laura  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Mon Apr 29 14:39:40 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:39:40 -0000
Subject: Future use of Imperius (was Ron's prejudices)
In-Reply-To: <104894041530.20020428204957@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <aajlvc+fjkm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38287

Susanne wrote:

> I don't understand why Ron's inability to fight the
> Imperious curse gets used as an argument against him.
> 
> The way I understood it, Harry was the *only* one who was
> successful with that.
> So everyone else, including Hermione would then be weak.
> 
This is intriguing.  Could Ron's inability be misdirection?  So in a 
future book, odd stuff happens which can only be explained (by the 
reader) as one of the main characters being under Imperius.  We all 
think it must be Ron, and in chapter last-minus-one, *Hermione* 
suddenly tries to AK Harry (and we are all left wandering why she 
waited until then to do it...).

She does have a slight tendency to Poirot-like concealment of her 
thoughts (why didn't she say 'Basilisk' or 'Beetle Animagus' before 
rushing off to the library?  In the former case it would have spoilt 
the plot but saved Harry, Ron and Lockhart no little difficulty).  
That could mean that Imperius-induced oddness would be tolerated on 
the grounds that she has come up trumps in the past.

Of course, we have already effectively had the 'villain is a good guy 
under Imperius' twist in Ginny in COS. (I am not saying that Riddle 
used Imperius as such.  But in plot terms it's the same.)  And come 
to think of it, GOF could have been almost exactly the same if 
Crouch/Moody had been the real Moody under Imperius - all you need is 
a hiding place for Crouch to stay - for example, Moody's trunk - 
while exercising Imperius.

So in a way, I hope it doesn't happen, or JKR introduces some 
limitation on the possibility of an Imperius free-for-all, like a 
diagnostic counter-curse that a third party can use on a suspected 
victim. (In which case why wasn't it used in the seventies?)  I think 
without something like that, the WW would have ended up as 95% 
zombies controlled by a few strong individuals centuries earlier.

David




From nobradors at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 29 14:02:00 2002
From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:02:00 -0000
Subject: prejudice in the WW/Voldemort's baby form/Misuse of Muggle artiefcts/Sirius
Message-ID: <aajjoo+s61@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38288

Zoehoock replied to my post:
> Not a "classy family"?  I think you're treading on dangerous ground 
> here. Your implication seems to be that the Weasley's, who must be 
> a "common" family, since they're not "classy", don't know any 
better 
> than to state prejudices that they don't even understand.
> 
> I find that offensive.
> 
> I would definitely assume the Malfoys are a "classy" family, and 
> they're just as prejudiced, if not more so, than the Weasleys.

I'm sorry if I sounded offensive, I didn't mean to. Please cope with 
my English! However, there *are* many people who assume some 
generalizations because don't know any better (like, "the French 
don't wash themselves" "the English are boring", jokes about Polish 
or Galitians and nonsense like that). Hopefully, they'll meet some of 
that people and have a chance to see if what they thought about them 
is true or not. 
The difference is, a truly prejudiced person, like any of the 
Malfoys, will not give in to the evidence they were wrong. No matter 
how tame a werewolf proves to be, they'll still want to get rid of it 
(oh, no, just avoiding him is not enough! they must die, they're not 
human!, they must think). 
That's why I like to make a difference between "prejudice" 
and "generalization", because many times "generalization" is a 
product of ignorance and not of hatred. And I'm not 
saying "ignorance" in a negative way - just as not knowing better on 
a certain subject. 

******
about my post:
>I guess he might probably got her pregnant and Voldemort took
>  the offspring's body. Perhaps it wasn't
> even a 9-month pregnancy, as magic and perversion are involved.

SerenaDust said:
>I don't know if Nuria is reading a translated version of GoF, but my 
>UK/US versions don't mention anything about Peter *seducing* Bertha 
>Jorkins.

oooops! My mistake here,(seems I wasn't having a very bright day, 
huh?). You are right, the canon states nothing about proper 
seduction. Call me a dirty mind, then, but I got the feeling some of 
that might have happenned.<eg>

***********
Kitty wonders:
>It seems that the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts seems to be quite 
>grey! What exactly is a Muggle Artifact? Things that use 
>ekeltricity? Internal-Cumbustion engines? So why is an enchanted 
>teapot a Muggle Artifact? 

I guess that when it comes to objects common to both world, like the 
teapot, enchanting must be used in an extremely careful way. In the 
teapot case: if you magic water into it, perform a heating spell to 
have the water ready for tea, the teapot itself would still be jinx-
free and could be used by any muggle in the usual muggle way. But if 
you cast the spell on the teapot itself, and not provide a counter-
spell mechanism or something like that, I guess it's a misuse of 
muggle artifact then.

*****
Finwitch said:
>What is it about Wormtail that Harry'll be glad he saved him? Will 
>Sirius get free, will Wormtail save Harry's life, both or something 
>else? I *do* hope Sirius gets free in the 5th book... And I'd like 
>to see a Sirius Black vs. a Dursley scene - particularly Marge! 
>Perhaps >as Sirius comes to take custody of Harry - or just comes 
>for a visit.

Oh yes, yes, yes!!! That would be sooo cool!!!  Specially for us 
girls who have a crush on Sirius <blush> shame on me, acting like a 
teen...

Cheers, 

Nuri







From heidit at netbox.com  Mon Apr 29 15:58:44 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:58:44 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
Message-ID: <aajqjk+hbq4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38289

This week's question from the Phil Nel database...

 Why has Rowling drawn connections between Voldemort and Harry?  In
linking these characters so closely, is she suggesting some kinship
between opposites?  Are good and evil bound closely together?  Can 
you think of other characters in the series who, though they appear 
to be opposites, are in fact more alike than we initially suspect?

********************************************************************

The connection between Harry and Voldemort is distinctly drawn in 
CoS, when Tom Riddle points out the similarities:

"There are strange likenesses between us, after all. Even you must
have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably
the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great
Slytherin himself. We even *look* something alike . . ." (CoS 317)

What does Tom think these similarities mean?  What does Harry think
they mean?  What does Dumbledore think they mean? What do YOU think
they, and other connections that have been discussed in the books' 
subtext, mean? 

*******************************************************************
KINSHIP BETWEEN OPPOSITES
_The Double in Literature_ by Robert Rogers explores the phenomenon
of the literary double: two or more characters that appear to be
different aspects of a single self. A few of the types of doubles he
explores are the following:

The Mirror Image
Represented best by _The Picture of Dorian Gray_ by Oscar Wilde, the
Mirror Image is "not merely a similar self but an exact duplicate."
This kind of double is characterized by overt resemblance, 
narcissism,
and shared or complementary fates. (Strangely enough, twins don't
count as doubles.)

The Secret Sharer
Named after the Joseph Conrad story by the same name, the protagonist
recognizes a part of himself in the double and therefore feels he has
a secret kinship with his double.

The Antithetical Self
Often the most obvious kind of double, this double stands in an
antagonistic relationship with the hero but nevertheless is very much
like the hero, as if they were opposite sides of the same coin. (Post
38132 addresses the Harry/Voldemort connection rather well.)

Fragmentation of the Mind
Represented by _Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_ and _The Three Faces of 
Eve_,
this kind of doubling results from dissociation, in which different
parts of the mind begin to act independently of one another.

Ambivalence
This type of doubling was demonstrated in a recent thread on Snape as
Father Figure [begins 37961]: a single "object" or external force (in
this case the Father) is fragmented and distributed among several
characters. The fragmentation highlights the protagonist's 
ambivalence
about the object.

We've already noticed an Ambivalence double (the Father), and
Voldemort is obviously an Antithetical double to Harry. Do any more 
of these types of doubles turn up in HP? 

ARE GOOD AND EVIL BOUND CLOSELY TOGETHER 

1. Characters
In Post 23737, Pippin wrote, succinctly, "In Rowling's world we have 
met no character who personifies the forces of good as thoroughly as 
Voldemort personifies evil."

Voldemort personified evil, that is clear. We have never seen him, 
in any of his incarnations, do anything that could be deemed 
deliberately good or helpful (although an argument can be made that 
he was inadvertently helpful to the students of Hogwarts back in the 
40s, when he managed to get Aragog out of the castle).

Have we, however, met no character who thoroughly personified the 
forces of good?
Harry? He's done some things which are against the law - wizarding 
and Muggle.
Dumbledore? He has probably violated the law in not reporting 
Sirius' location to the Ministry or reporting that he is an 
unregistered animagus, but he has good reasons for doing so, doesn't 
he? But what about the discussion we've had here about opportunities 
for machination behind the scenes? Is it good or evil to put 
adolescents in harm's way, even if it's for a noble cause? Many 
people on this list would probably frown at countries who allow 
children - 13, 14 - to become soldiers. Why don't we frown on a 
novel where an aged headmaster may have done the same sort of thing 
to an 11 year old - turned him into a soldier without even really 
explaining the battle he's to fight? When is such an act good? When 
is it evil?
Perhaps Lily will be the complete exemplar of goodness - but for us 
to accept that now would mean concluding that she didn't know that 
her husband was an unregistered animagus, which would then say 
certain things about *their* relationship, or that there is no 
obligation to turn in an unregistered animagus.

2. Actions & Words
On a smaller level, what determines whether an act is "good" 
or "evil"? Here's a set of examples from Book 3:
Harry is not supposed to go to Hogsmeade, but sneaks there via the 
Map, then uses the cloak to stay unseen. Is this good or evil?
Draco is allowed to be in Hogsmeade, and when he sees Harry there, 
knowing that Harry is not allowed to go, he tells on him to a 
teacher. Is this good or evil?
Ron lies to Snape to try to keep Harry from being punished. Is this 
good or evil?
Snape, who believes Draco's accusation, says mean things about 
Harry's father while accusing Harry of breaking the school rule. Is 
this good or evil?
Lupin chastises Harry for breaking the school rule. Is this good or 
evil?
Lupin, who knows that Harry broke the school rule, does not punish 
him in the traditional way, with detentions, or a report to his head 
of house or the headmaster. Is this good or evil?

How does someone's movitation affect whether an act is good or evil?
Lupin's motivation above may've been self-preservation; letting his 
higher-ups know about the rule breaking would've let Dumbledore know 
about the Map and perhaps about the Animagi as well.
Draco's motivation may've been to get Harry expelled; does a 
motivation make a "proper" or "good" act evil?

For more on motivation, read Peg Kerr's post here: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/1553.

3. Themes in Literature
One of the oldest themes in literature is the triumph of good over 
evil. While the HP canon is still open, and at this juncture, it's 
impossible to tell where good and evil stand on the continuum of 
each character (other than perhaps Harry and Voldemort), what 
factors do we, the readers, use to determine whether a character or 
an action is evil or not? In Book 3, even at the end, did anyone 
think that Harry's request to turn Wormtail in was anything but a 
good decision? What would the Diggorys say about that decision at 
the end of Book 4? 







OPPOSITES & SIMILARITIES

Do any of these pairs/groups function as doubles (they might not)? If
so, which kind? What function might this doubling have in the Grand
Scheme of Things?

Harry and James
Harry and Lockhart
Harry, Ron, Hermione
Dumbledore and Voldemort
Sirius, James, Peter, Remus (aka The Marauders) and their animal 
selves)
Harry and Draco
Ron and Draco
McGonagall, Snape, and Dumbledore
McGonagall and Trelawney
McGonagall and Hermione
Crouch Sr. and Ludo Bagman
Sirius and Snape
Lily and Hermione
Snape and James
Ginny and Lily
Snape and Lupin
Dudley and Draco

Anyone else?












1. Characters
In Post 23737, Pippin wrote, succinctly, "In Rowling's world we have 
met no character who personifies the
forces of good as thoroughly as Voldemort personifies evil."
Voldemort personified evil, that is clear. We have never seen him, 
in any of his incarnations, do anything that could be deemed 
deliberately good or helpful (although an argument can be made that 
he was inadvertently helpful to the students of Hogwarts back in the 
40s, when he managed to get Aragog out of the castle).

Have we, however, met no character who thoroughly personified the 
forces of good?
Harry? He's done some things which are against the law - wizarding 
and Muggle.
Dumbledore? He has probably violated the law in not reporting 
Sirius' location to the Ministry, but he has good reasons for doing 
so, doesn't he? But what about the discussion we've had here about 
opportunities for machination behind the scenes? Is it good or evil 
to put adolescents in harm's way, even if it's for a noble cause? 
Many people on this list would probably frown at countries who allow 
children - 13, 14 - to become soldiers. Why don't we frown on a 
novel where an aged headmaster may have done the same sort of thing 
to an 11 year old - turned him into a soldier without even really 
explaining the battle he's to fight? When is such an act good? When 
is it evil?
Perhaps Lily will be the complete exemplar of goodness - but for us 
to accept that now would mean concluding that she didn't know that 
her husband was an unregistered animagus, which would then say 
certain things about *their* relationship, or that there is no 
obligation to turn in an unregistered animagus.

2. Actions & Words
On a smaller level, what determines whether an act is "good" 
or "evil"? Here's a set of examples from Book 3:
Harry is not supposed to go to Hogsmeade, but sneaks there via the 
Map, then uses the cloak to stay unseen. Is this good or evil?
Draco is allowed to be in Hogsmeade, and when he sees Harry there, 
knowing that Harry is not allowed to go, he tells on him to a 
teacher. Is this good or evil?
Ron lies to Snape to try to keep Harry from being punished. Is this 
good or evil?
Snape, who believes Draco's accusation, says mean things about 
Harry's father while accusing Harry of breaking the school rule. Is 
this good or evil?
Lupin chastises Harry for breaking the school rule. Is this good or 
evil?
Lupin, who knows that Harry broke the school rule, does not punish 
him in the traditional way, with detentions, or a report to his head 
of house or the headmaster. Is this good or evil?

How does someone's movitation effect whether an act is good or evil?
Lupin's motivation above may've been self-preservation; letting his 
higher-ups know about the rule breaking would've let Dumbledore know 
about the Map and perhaps about the Animagi as well.
Draco's motivation may've been to get Harry expelled; does a 
motivation make a "proper" or "good" act evil?

For more on motivation, read Peg Kerr's post here: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/1553.

3. Themes in Literature
One of the oldest themes in literature is the triumph of good over 
evil. While the HP canon is still open, and at this juncture, it's 
impossible to tell where good and evil stand on the continuum of 
each character (other than perhaps Harry and Voldemort), what 
factors do we, the readers, use to determine whether a character or 
an action is evil or not? In Book 3, even at the end, did anyone 
think that Harry's request to turn Wormtail in was anything but a 
good decision? What would the Diggorys say about that decision at 
the end of Book 4?



posted by Heidi and Dicentra




From oppen at cnsinternet.com  Mon Apr 29 17:26:34 2002
From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:26:34 -0500
Subject: Durmstrang's location
Message-ID: <003001c1efa3$0e58e8a0$f8c71bce@hppav>

No: HPFGUIDX 38290

I'm the one that wrote the article (it now appears on the HP Lexicon) about
languages of instruction at Durmstrang, so I'll tackle the question of its
location.  We know (or believe, at least---Ron may not be a reliable witness
and the Durmstrang students themselves are silent on this subject) that it's
near glaciers, and in a mountainous area, probably close to the sea.  From
things that Viktor Krum says, it's probably pretty far north.

Taking the above as given, we are basically down to only a few locations,
most of them in Norway.  Northern Norway is an excellent place to go if you
want to be left alone; the population is scattered and thin on the ground
and the terrain is rugged enough to hide a great many things.

The heavily-Slavic student body might tend to militate against this, but
Durmstrang could have originally been located somewhere in Eastern Europe,
with the language of instruction German at first, shifting to one of the
Slavic languages as time went on.  However, there is another possibility:
Svalbard!

Svalbard, for those of you not familiar with it, is an archipelago north of
Norway in the Arctic. (A lot of the action in _Northern Lights/The Golden
Compass_ in the _His Dark Materials_ trilogy takes place there)   It has a
smallish permanent population, as well as (these days) hosting Arctic
tourism.  It is rather mountainous and has lots of glaciers, has huge areas
that nobody visits much, is cold and dark (obviously!) _and has had, at
various times, considerable Russian presence._  If I were looking for a
place where wizards could learn magic in peace, one of the less-visited
islands of the archipelago would strike me as nearly ideal.

As for how the students get there---they could use a variant on the
Durmstrang ship, boarding it at some location they can all get to (Vienna,
in the Danube, is one good possibility for the
Eastern-Europeans-outside-Russia, while the Russians could board the ship
(or another like it) in many places in Russia.  You could have half a dozen
ships, one for the Eastern Europeans, one from St. Petersburg or Kaliningrad
for the Baltic-area students, one from Moscow, one from Siberia, and so on.

Even though the school's probably on Norwegian territory, it may not get
many Norwegian or other European students.  Remember, in canon, Durmstrang,
Hogwarts and Beauxbatons are the three largest schools of magic in Europe.
They wouldn't've said that if other, smaller, schools didn't exist.  I
wouldn't be surprised to find out about an "Escuela por Magica y Brujeria"
in Spain or Portugal somewhere, to serve the Iberian magic community's
educational needs, as well as Italian schools, and several in Southeastern
Europe, possibly concentrating on several different styles and traditions of
magic---Slavic, Vlach (Romanian), Greek and Turkish/Islamic.  Another school
where the language of instruction is Scandinavian might well be found in an
isolated Norwegian valley or lonely fjord, serving the specific needs of
students from the Scandinavian countries who don't want to go to Durmstrang.




From mikeyc681 at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 29 17:36:27 2002
From: mikeyc681 at hotmail.com (mikeyc681dj)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:36:27 -0000
Subject: Ducking Missiles like Osama  RE: Voldemort good?
Message-ID: <aak0ar+v0c1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38291

in reply of theresa's message:

There is no way Voldemort is good. voldemort join Dumbledore against 
Fudge and the MOM? HA! I personally think thats a crazy thought. If 
Voldemort becomes good, the story totally Changes. And what is MOM? 
Money Over Ministry? Money Over Maddness? Voldemort is the main bad 
guy here, if voldemort is gone, then somebody else must take has 
place. For example in Lori's "Paradigm Of Uncertainty" fan fic, 
Voldemort is stil alive but weakened, and a new main evil has 
replaced him. Plus, Voldemort doesn't know good or evil. He just 
knows power. This was said towards the end of the first book. 

"mikeyc681dj" 

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:07:11 +0000
   From: "Theresa ryan" <theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Voldemort good?

(Ducking all missiles aimed my way)
  I know, I know, he is supposed to be the manifestation of evil, 
but look 
at it this way, all the other characters are multi faceted with some 
good 
and some bad parts in them, yes, even Harry. (Unwilling to make up 
with Ron, 
childish but still bad) Ergo, Voldemort should have some good side 
in him.
    This provides scope for an unconventional twist in the story- 
Maybe 
Voldemort will join Dumbledore against Fudge and the MOM in a 
battle? (Which 
by the way, I think would be a guerrilla type war) It's an 
interesting 
thought. Forget Evil! Ron, how about Good! Voldemort?
I'm sure someone can come up with an acronym for this, I need more 
practice...
     Have fun!
        theresa.







From columbiatexan at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 29 17:56:36 2002
From: columbiatexan at yahoo.com (columbiatexan)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:56:36 -0000
Subject: Ron's "special power"/Voldemort's "goodness"/Harry&Veela/Ginny-NAGINI'S BANE
Message-ID: <aak1gl+lqai@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38292

Hey, and y'all thought I had abandoned you, maybe? Naahhh, 
just busy with some... err... studying.  Seriously, it's finals period 
at Columbia... 

I was going to write up a big defense of Ron, but y'all beat me to 
the punch.  So I just wanted to start, I guess, with a continuation 
fo this discussion of Voldemort's possible goodness.

Quoting Theresa Ryan:

"Ergo, Voldemort should have some good side in 
him.  This provides scope for an unconventional twist in the 
story--"

I'm actually gonna argue not so unconventional--though I'm 
arguing for an entirely different twist from the one you were 
arguing for.  Now this is all my own opinion and conjecture, so 
feel free to disagree, but I think the  pivotal moment in 
Voldemort's fall to evil was the death of his mom and his 
abandonment by his father, and his subsequent placement in a 
Muggle orphanage.  It bred in him a hatred for the Muggle and 
wizarding communities alike; he was abandoned by his Muggle 
dad and raised in what one imagines was a not very pleasant 
Muggle environment.  And he must have felt the wizarding 
community abandoned him to his fate in the orphanage without 
caring at all for him (one wonders who his family will be revealed 
to be... who is Marvolo after all?).  It's interesting that in the 
Chamber of Secrets, he has a long discussion with Harry about 
the similarities between the two of them because it highlights 
what Dumbledore points out only a few pages later--that it's our 
choices, far more than our abilities, that determine who we 
become (something I'm going to return to in the subsequent 
discussion of Ron).

I guess I'm one of the few people who thinks his mom wasn't so 
bad.  After all, just because she was the heir of Slytherin doesn't 
mean that she agreed with her ancestor's views.  She obviously 
didn't hate Muggles or Muggle-borns enough, considering she 
was willing to bear a half-Muggle-born.  Was she married to 
Tom Riddle?  I got the feeling she was, in any case, we get the 
impression that she was devastated when he left her.  Or maybe 
that was just Tom's playing up the pity card.  But *if* she is a 
sympathetic, kind-hearted person, a "good Slytherin" if you will, I 
think she may point the road to Voldemort's eventual 
redemption.  Of course, he has to die.  He has to die for the 
increidible and brutal devastation and carnage he has wracked 
on the wizarding community for, what, 20 years.  In the literary 
sense, he's going to have to pay for those crimes, and no, a life 
sentence in Azkaban isn't going to cut it.  But, if Rowling is able 
to come up with a way for Voldemort to come into contact with 
his mother, perhaps through a diary or a shadow of herself (or 
perhaps... say... a ghost?), and find out that she is extremely 
disappointed in what he has become, it could set the stage for 
his atoning for his crimes.  It could be satisfying for him to see 
the error of his ways before he is brought to pay for his actions.  
But Voldemort will die, he's depicted as the "ultimate evil" in 
these books.  Fudge isn't evil, just a simpleton.  he's kind of like 
one of those ostriches that stick their head in the sand, and 
that's pretty much what he's doing at the moment... IMHO, he'll 
either wise up or be killed off, I don't think he's going to actively 
and/or knowingly aid the Dark Side.

Now on to Ron.  It's interesting to me how many people keep 
bringing up the potentiality that Ron might be a Seer.  It's a pretty 
neat idea, and the whole "Seventh Son" thing is something I 
hadn't considered at all before, and is now something I'm 
wondering about avidly.  (And off topic, but good job to those of 
you who suggested Karkaroff may have attended Hogwarts!! I 
never noticed his perfect English before!  And considering the 
whole Death Eater phenomenon seems to have been primarily 
an English one, he most likely was in England!)

OK, well this isn't the quote I intended to use, but it'll do, this is 
from Tabouli:

Athena:
> This is a call to Tabouli and/or Grey Wolf for an acronym to one 
of my pet
theories. The one with the slightly obscured alphabetic naming 
scheme to
hide a missing Weasley son which would make Ron a seventh 
son and have
latent psychic powers which would allow him to flourish outside 
the shadows
of his brothers and Harry.<

Poor old Ron, eh? It's just not fair. Overshadowed by his brother,
overshadowed by his best friends...

Am I the only one who DOESN'T feel sorry for Ron or that he 
doesn't need a talent to make him "special"?   First of all, Harry 
seems to think he's plenty special... special enough to feel 
jealous of anyway.  Luck is completely in the eye of the beholder.  
Harry, who's never known his family or had people to truly love 
him for who he is, is truly envious of Ron for having the family 
that he does.  Yeah, the Weasley's get on each other's nerves 
every now and then, but what family doesn't?  The truth of the 
matter is, each and every one of them loves each other--as 
evidenced by the fact that Fred and George WANTED Percy to eat 
with them on Christmas Day in book 1, Percy's wading out into 
the pond after ron in Book 4, Ron falling to the floor when he 
found out Ginny had been kidnapped in Book2, etc etc.  And 
more importantly, Ron is appreciate for who he is, while Harry is 
constantly fawned over for being "famous Harry Potter," ironically 
enough the thing that Ron is envious of him for.  Just goes to 
show you to be careful of what you wish for, at least in Ron's 
case... it's not all it's cracked up to be, and I think that just might 
be the lesson Rowling is trying to paint with this particular thing.

Secondly, OK, even if Hermione and Harry are have more latent 
talent than Ron, it just makes Ron all the more brave.  Again, he 
highlights that great quote from Dumbledore, which is certainly 
among my favorites, that it is our choices, far more than our 
talents, which determine who we become.  I personally don't 
need Ron to equal Harry or Hermione in skill level or 
intelligence.  What I do need for him is to make the right choices, 
and so far, he has displayed an incredible ability far beyond his 
years to make the right choices, though they have most certainly 
not been the easy ones.  In fact, in Book I and Book III, he was 
the one who got bludgeoned, torn, broken and battered.  Yet in 
Book 3, we see probably his greatest display of courage to this 
point, when he stands on his broken leg and refuses to let Sirius 
kill Harry.  And in Book 4, which perhaps showcases some of 
the most painful to read behavior on their parts (well, it at least 
closely rivals when the two of them ganged up on Hermione), he 
is at least mature enough to admit he was wrong (and Harry is 
mature enough, admittedly, to not force him to do so when he 
realizes he's about to).  

It's Ron's utter normalcy that makes him so likable.  He's the 
normal kid who does great things.  And yes, while he does enjoy 
the attention when he gets it, what kid wouldn't?  Yes, Harry, but 
that's only because he's been surrounded by it all his love--what 
he craves is real love, not mass adoration.  

His prejudices, well, let's not be too hard on the kid, he has 
grown up in the wizarding world his entire life and has been 
surrounded by these views.  Hagrid seems extremely 
xenophobic, yet we're not all predicting bad things from him.  
Bad things happening TO him, suure, but not him doing bad 
things.  Remember, part of Harry and Hermione's lack of the 
prejudices Ron has is due to the fact that they are relatively new 
entrants to the wizarding world.  The only person they've known 
of any giant descent is Hagrid, so they don't have knowledge of 
bad giants.  They've only known a good (albeit a little nutso when 
it comes to "interestin' creatures") one.  Though, perhaps they 
too are on to something--since Dumbledore pushes Fudge to 
send envoys to the giants, so obviously HE thinks they can't be 
all bad.  But i don't think it's fair to expect the wisdom of a 150-
year-old (and it's Dumbledore for crying out loud, at that!) of a 14-
year old.  Ron's whole thing about pretty girls... well shucks... *
looks at floor* I'm 20 for crying out loud and I'm, well not AS bad, 
but still... I mean.   

Although the question begs to be asked, was he really 
interested in getting the prettiest girl in the school to go with him 
or was he just trying ot get a rise out of Hermione?  Take Fleur 
out, she's part veela... Dean and Seamus say Harry and Ron got 
the prettiest girls in the school (or at least in their year) to go with 
them... yet neither of them were at all interested.  So were Dean 
and Seamus just biased, and Padma and Parvati were not the 
prettiest girls in the school (which might make sense, since they 
were still available for the ball; or they were so breathtakingly 
beautiful every guy in the school was too intimidated to ask--but 
you're telling me not a single Beauxbatons, Durmstrang, or 
upperclassmen at Hogwarts had the chutzpah?  I don't think 
so...), or is Ron not as shallow as one might think?  And I'm not 
willing to cut Hermione off the hook--if we're going to try Ron by 
the shallowness fire, and include Harry in the trial b/c his interest 
in Cho seems to be solely focused on her good looks, well I 
mean, come on, I love Hermione and all, but she did shrink her 
teeth against the spoken request of her parents, she got all 
gussied up for the ball, and she did arrive on the arm of the most 
sought-after guy in the entire school.  OK, so she wasn't 
impressed by Viktor's fame and all... but still, some part of her 
must have felt good about it.  All people are shallow, especially 
at that age, especially boys... I'm not willing to throw Ron to the 
dogs because he notices some girls are prettier than others, 
and I'm willing to bet most of that conversation was to get a rise 
out of Hermione (in that position, I would have done the exact 
same thing).

The house elves thing, well, I'll save that whole discussion for 
later, but I think Hermione and Ron are both right.  They do enjoy 
where they are, but Hermione is right that they need to be 
educated.  Because I cannot believe that Rowling is just going to 
leave the situation as is... even Harry agrees with Hermione that 
they should get paid (though he gets annoyed with her after a 
while).  Perhaps Rowling is trying to show here that when you're 
an activist, sometimes you get as much resistance from the 
people you're trying to help as the people who benefit from their 
oppression...

Anyway, Ron's a good kid, and I think he's great just the way he 
is.  I admire him all the more because, while he hasn't been 
revealed to have any "special talents," he has displayed great 
courage and has made the right choices, rather than the easy 
choices, for the most part.  Ron adds balance to their little group. 
Also, it's nice to see that between the three of them, they 
encompass most of the possibilities... we have a pureblood, the 
child of a pureblood and a muggle-born (one of the reasons i'm 
hoping neither Lily's parents nor Hermione's parents turn out to 
be wizards or Squibs--it'd just ruin it for me if they weren't 
Muggles), and a muggle born.  If I had to choose, I'd vote for 
SACRIFICE rather than the whole Evil!Ron deal, b/c it will break 
my heart (and it will break the hearts of Harry, Hermione and all 
the Weasleys) to see an evil Ron... at least SACRIFICE lets him 
go out in a blaze of glory.  Part of me wonders if the whole book 
series is going to turn out to be a red herring, in a way, and Ron 
and not Harry will turn out to be the ultimate hero.  But more than 
any of that, I would like to see the three kids grow up and live 
happily ever after... I'll be happy if they all end up happy.  

Oh, and finally, I hate to do this, I really hate to throw in 
arguments against my own SHIP, but nevertheless, a selfless 
devotion to the pursuit of truth forces me to...

1)The whole debate about seating arragements at the Quidditch 
World Cup is moot.  Hermione only pulls Harry back into his seat 
because he was the only one standing up--we get not a single 
indication that Ron was standing up, and indeed, the fact that Mr. 
Weasley *leaned over* to stop Ron from tearing the shamrocks 
on his hat indicates that he was, in all likelihood, sitting down.  
Combined with the seating chart argument, though, this is 
almost incontrovertible proof that Hermione was not showing a 
preference for either of the two boys when she pulled Harry back 
into his seat.  Though, it's interesting that after Harry has the 
more blatant reaction to the veela here, he's completely 
unaffected by Fleur.  Is this related to his ability to resist Imperio 
perhaps?  Indeed, hermione in general seems to be annoyed 
with both boys when they show interest in girls solely based on 
attractiveness... though Ron gets the short end of the stick here 
as well, either because of Hermione's greater romantic interest 
in him or because he is more obvious about it.  Only once does 
Hermione notice Harry doing it, as far as I can tell, and she calls 
him (and Ron) down for it.

2)It is interesting to note in Chamber of Secrets that Tom notes 
that he poured some of himself into Ginny when she was writing 
in the diary, and just a few chapters later, dumbledore notes that 
Voldemort put some of himself (like his ability to speak 
Parseltongue) into Harry when the AK curse rebounded.  
Hmmm... you know, it's always seemed to me, and perhaps this 
is just me, but I've always felt that Chamber of Secrets is the one 
book among the 4 that doesn't really "fit."  I never understood it's 
point relative to the others in overall plot development.  It is 
without a doubt my least favorite of the 4 (though that's not 
saying much, since I'll reread it in an instant if given the chance... 
but Book 3 is undoubtedly my favorite--i feel it has the best plot 
twists and the tightest overall plot, though Book 4 is more 
emotional and touching) for that very reason.  But I'm seriously 
doubting that the whole point of Book 2 is to set up this similarity 
between Harry and Ginny, but perhaps Ginny in future books will 
be revealed to have "inherited" some talents from Voldemort... 
possibly contributing to NAGINI'S BANE!?!  (BTW, Tabouli, yet 
again let me bow down to your brilliance on that one!  You better 
be careful though, your lieutenant, Grey Wolf, is nipping at your 
heels... hmm, considering he's a wolf, that was perhaps an 
unfortunate choice of words)

The only other overall importance I can see to Book 2 is that it 
gives us some further insight to what went on behind the 
creation of Voldemort.  It is obvious that he has always been a 
bad apple, even since his days at Hogwarts.  He went bad from 
a very early age--and perhaps, well we're also introduced to the 
Riddle family, and we're introduced to his mom.  And I'm 
convinced that we've not seen the last of her, IF Rowling intends 
to have Voldemort atone for his bad actions at all.  I guess it 
depends... is Voldemort Darth Vader, or the Emperor?  And we 
also find out that Hagrid and Voldemort knew each other--will 
they face each other again?

OK, that's it, I"m going before I encourage anyone to make more 
Star Wars analogies... yes, I think Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, 
and Star Wars are among the greatest epics of our century (the 
last one), but really.  No one make anything of the whole Luke-
Leia/Harry-Hermione same-letter deal... if she makes Harry and 
Hermione long lost twins, I will be so disappointed. It was cool 
in Star Wars because it was relatively original... it would be funny 
though.  I can just see Harry yelling at Dumbledore for sending 
him to live with the Dursleys while Hermione got to live with the 
nice Muggles... :P  But again, that would ruin the whole Muggle-
born thing we've got going on, and that to me is one of the most 
important themes Rowling's got going in the story.

OK, enough rambling.  Did I make up for my 2 week-long 
absence.  I promise I've been keeping up with your posts...

Rohit (columbiatexan)




From dicentra at xmission.com  Mon Apr 29 17:33:06 2002
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:33:06 -0000
Subject: Correction: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
In-Reply-To: <aajqjk+hbq4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aak04i+kvk3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38293

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> This week's question from the Phil Nel database...

Because of technical difficulties, three of the follow-up questions to
this week's Phil Nel question were repeated. The questions end with
the list of pairs ("Anyone else?" at the end); anything else after
that you can ignore.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

--Dicey and Heidi





From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Mon Apr 29 19:23:48 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:23:48 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucious as Minister of Magic ( was Re: Voldemort good?)
Message-ID: <31.26270741.29fef7c4@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38294

In a message dated 4/29/2002 7:50:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
katgirl at lava.net writes:

<< When Sirius decides to make himself known and get a 
 trial, this is going to have a serious weighing on the outcome, even 
 if there is a new Minister. (And remember, Saint Lucius took Saint 
 Cornelius's place.) >>

    Aiye. While I was reading this, I was hit with the horrible notion that 
what if Lucious really DID take over as MoM in one of the future books? We 
know from the canon that although Lucius is a DE and is basically a 
slimeball, he DOES hold a certain amount of respect, especially from Fudge 
and his followers. And, obviously, he's smart enough (at least for now) to 
earn back Voldemort's trust, even after he had "left" his side for 13 years. 
If Fudge was killed or unable to control his ofice, would Lucius get the job? 
    Another reason I think he's at least be in the running is that Fudge is 
absolutely refusing to believe that Voldemort is back. He tells Dumbledore 
he's wrong, and that the very idea is pretty much laughable. Now, if someon 
had to take over for Fudge, Lucius would be in the position to do so. He 
would obviously agree with Fudge and deny any rumor that Voldemort was back 
in the slightest. By doing this, he'd gain the trust of MoM workers, while at 
the same time making things much easier for Voldemort to gain back all this 
powers. Any thoughts?
*Chelsea*

    



From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Mon Apr 29 19:34:20 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:34:20 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's chess ability
Message-ID: <aa.ac4be96.29fefa3c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38295

In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:38:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
huntleyl at mssm.org writes:

<< Come to think of it, perhaps that's why so many people (including me) get 
the innate feeling that Ron is "weak".  >>

    I don't understand why after all the debating, and aall the canon 
evidence, people keep saying that Ron is weak. (Not trying to be rude here.) 
Some of the major canon events in which Ron has shown undaunting bravery, and 
true leadership and logic skills, would be the Chess Game in SS/PS, and when 
he stands up to what he believes are Murderer!Siruis, and EvilWerewolf!Lupin. 
In the Chess Game, he uss his logic to get his friends to safety, so that 
they are okay, and will be able to help others, while sacrificing himself in 
order to make things work. I know that 
Laura said: 
 <<Because it's Hermione and Harry that usually take up the lead.  With the 
exception, of course, of the Giant Chess scene, which sticks out like a sore 
thumb..>>..but I have to say that Ron wasn't displaying a one-time act of 
random bravery - he was put to the test, and he passed with flying colors.
    The other situation that I mentioned was the scene in the Shrieking 
Shack. My copy of PoA is floating around here somewhere, so I don't remember 
what is exactly said, but I do know that Ron said something along the lines 
of 'If you want to get to Harry, you'll have to get past us first" to Siruis. 
He is displaying an incredible amount of bravery and leadrship here. How many 
13 year olds do you know that would put their lives on the line (repeatedly) 
to help their friends, and pretty much an entire civilization? 
    To put an end to my rambling, I think that Ron will play a major part in 
the war against V (or maybe just the "efforts", for there may not actually be 
an all-out war), and that he will use logic AND bravery to do so.
*Chelsea*
             



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Apr 29 19:35:30 2002
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:35:30 -0000
Subject: Wizarding World law/ Fourth Man
In-Reply-To: <190.637fd5c.29fe886c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aak7a2+la87@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38296

Eloise wrote:

> Bagman has also already apparently been found guilty and has 
returned for 
> sentencing.

Oh my.  I think Bagman *wasn't* convicted at all.  Crouch Sr. says 
that "We have heard the evidence against you, and are about to reach 
our verdict.  Do you have anything to add to your testimony before we 
pronounce judgment?"

So even though I am thoroughly, 100% convinced that Bagman Is Ever So 
Evil and is a Total Secret DE through and through, he did manage not 
to be convicted, I think.

> The same also perhaps applies to the four accused in the Longbottom 
affair. 
> JKR uses rather confusing language. Crouch says that they are 
*accused* 
> rather than *found guilty* of the crimes, but then clearly goes on 
to 
> sentence. I suppose that possibly they were not tried, as happened 
in Sirius' 
> case, but I have always supposed, on the basis of the Bagman scene, 
that the 
> evidence had already been heard.

Yes, I think JKR is being way imprecise here.  It drives me to 
distraction every time I read it.  I mean, he keeps saying the four 
people "stand accused", and then he asks the jury to raise their 
hands and pass judgment.  Only one potential sentence is offered up: 
a life sentence in Azkaban.  There's no examination of whether one 
defendant is more culpable than the others.  I have never been able 
to make sense of that scene.  I actually find it rather FLINT-y.

Maybe the delay in the release in OoP is being used to get these 
legal details correct this time around?  :-)  Nah, probably not.  
There probably won't be any legal proceedings in OoP.  Wizards will 
just blast each other on sight.
 
Eloise:

> The WW seems to have a rather medieval way of going on about 
things. I 
> wouldn't on that basis expect lawyers (at least, not defence 
lawyers) in our 
> modern sense, but I would expect that the accused might have some 
kind of 
> supporter, a 'prisoner's friend' sort of thing. 

Well, despite making me gnash my teeth now and then, I guess we could 
evaluate the extent to which the WW gets it right when it comes to 
imposing sentence.  Let's see how the wizards are doing with sending 
the guilty to jail and acquitting the innocent:

Sirius -- Wrong.  Sent an innocent man to jail for life.  The 
authorities are still pursuing him, believing him guilty.

Pettigrew -- Wrong.  Skipped off and evaded capture, although he had 
to part with a few body parts, which isn't so bad when you consider 
the alternative.  

Avery -- Wrong.  Got off on Imperius.

Malfoy -- Wrong.  Got off on Imperius.

Dolohov, Rosier, Wilkes -- Right.  Captured or killed, undoubtedly 
guilty.

Mulciber, Travers -- Right.  captured, undoubtedly guilty.  

Rookwood -- Right.  probably captured, undoubtedly guilty.

Snape -- Got off by betraying his old gang of Slytherins.

Karkaroff -- Right.  Convicted, but cut a deal.

Bagman -- Got off, although I personally think he was Way Guilty.

So maybe wizarding justice is correct about half the time?  Not too 
impressive, I guess, although wizards do seem to have found a way not 
to convict the innocent, unless the innocent have been properly 
framed.  ;-)

............................................
 
Eloise:

> I take it the word banging doesn't have the same connotations in 
the US as it 
> does here? Or are you referring to what Sirius and Arabella have 
been up to? 
> ;-)

I beg your pardon?  I'm sorry.  I'm not following you there.  ;-)

Eloise (about Tough Guy Avery):
 
> But is he really being Tough, Tough in a DE sense? Sure, we can 
make him out 
> to be noble and self-sacrificing in the graveyard. But *are* Tough 
DEs noble 
> and self-sacrificing? I tend to think not. The most noble and 
> self-sacrificing thing we've seen a DE do so far is Wormtail 
cutting off his 
> hand and not everyone thinks even *that's* Tough. 

Well, we don't have a lot to go on here.  But we have some small, 
puny canons, so I say we make the most out of them, shall we?

Wormtail has, on two occasions, taken one for the team.  But I'm not 
sure those occasions count.  The first (cutting off his finger) was 
pure self-preservation.  The second (cutting off his hand) was done 
out of duress, I suppose.

Now Mrs. Lestrange, maybe she is noble and self-sacrificing.  Maybe 
the whole idea was for her to stand up in the Pensieve scene and take 
a bullet for the other three DEs.  She was trying to save poor young 
Crouch, who was going to pieces there.  And perhaps (if you believe 
Avery is Fourth Man) it worked in the end, because it may have 
allowed Avery to point the finger at Mrs. Lestrange so that the 
Number Two DE, who is by definition more important than the other 
DEs, was able to walk free.

BTW, did we ever agree that Crouch Jr. is a SYCOPHANT?  I can't 
remember, although he sure sounds like one.  I mean, does being a 
SYCOPHANT preclude a character from being Tough or competent?  I kind 
of get that feeling (because our chief SYCOPHANTS are often portrayed 
as weak and ineffectual.)

But I digress.  So what is the yard-stick by which success as a DE is 
measured?  Voldemort seems to think it is loyalty.  But I'm not 
sure.  To the extent Voldemort has gotten hacked off at his DEs, it 
is incompetence that sets him off, maybe even more than simple lack 
of loyalty.  After all, all of the DEs in the graveyard were disloyal 
and left Voldemort to drift along as a vapor for 13 years or so.  
Didn't bother them one bit.  But Voldemort doesn't torture them, one 
by one.  No, he tortures Avery (as head DE?).  The other torture of a 
DE we see is Wormtail, who is tortured for incompetence (letting 
Crouch Sr. escape).  

Voldemort should focus more on the incompetence angle, if you ask 
me.  The threat of a few Cruciatus curses might go a long way toward 
sharpening the aim of the DEs when they are trying to gun down a 
fleeing, injured boy.

Eloise (about Wormtail severing his hand):

>(For the record, I have to 
> agree with the person who said that they couldn't do it if their 
>life 
> depended on it.) 

Well, it freaks me out to push back my cuticles, so I feel safe 
predicting I'd have trouble hacking off limbs.  But that's just me.

>If he's all that cunning, isn't he going to let someone else 
> get the rap? Are his fellow DEs really going to respect him as No 1 
>Henchman 
> because he allows Voldemort to punish him? The reverse, I'd have 
thought.

Ah, but there is that Life Debt thing.  Avery saved the DEs a dance 
with the Cruciatus Curse.  Maybe he figures they owe him now?

 > Surely the point about being a DE is that you're loyal to 
Voldemort, beyond 
> anything or anyone else. If he's Strong and Tough and Committed, 
(as I 
> unfortunately snipped), why doesn't he endure Azkaban, like the 
Lestranges, 
> or having got himself out by a cowardly cry of Imperius, why hasn't 
*he* done 
> something about trying to rescue Voldemort?
 
Now, where did this idea come from that invoking the Imperius Curse 
as a sham defense is cowardly?  If you are already Evil To The Core, 
why would you draw a line in the sand and say, "Oh, I'll torture 
muggles and kill people for sport, but *no way* will I *ever* claim 
Imperius.  That's just *wrong*."  I figure these wily DEs will say 
and do anything to stay out of Azkaban, because they are no good to 
anyone wasting away in prison.  

Except Mrs. Lestrange.  She didn't get the memo about claiming 
Imperius and slipping off the hook.  That Mrs. Lestrange is a real 
wildcat.

Eloise:

> Nah. In Over His Head Fourth Man works much better for me. In Over 
the Top 
> Fourth Man might just be Noble and Self Sacrificing; he's reading 
the wrong 
> script. He has a certain amount of pathos as well, which I quite 
like.

Oooh, are you proposing a new Fourth Man variant -- "Over The Top 
Fourth Man?"  Is he especially melodramatic, a bit of a Drama Queen 
or something?  Do tell, Eloise!

Cindy (trembling all over at the idea that there might be yet another 
Fourth Man variant)





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 29 19:40:18 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:40:18 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
In-Reply-To: <aajqjk+hbq4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aak7j3+48cd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38297

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> This week's question from the Phil Nel database...
> 
>  Why has Rowling drawn connections between Voldemort and Harry?  In
> linking these characters so closely, is she suggesting some kinship
> between opposites?  Are good and evil bound closely together?  Can 
> you think of other characters in the series who, though they appear 
> to be opposites, are in fact more alike than we initially suspect?
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 
> The connection between Harry and Voldemort is distinctly drawn in 
> CoS, when Tom Riddle points out the similarities:
> 
> "There are strange likenesses between us, after all. Even you must
> have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably
> the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great
> Slytherin himself. We even *look* something alike . . ." (CoS 317)
> 
> What does Tom think these similarities mean?  What does Harry think
> they mean?  What does Dumbledore think they mean? What do YOU think
> they, and other connections that have been discussed in the books' 
> subtext, mean? 

Also, Voldemort and Harry has *ability* that's not approved of, both 
show similar uppringing, look-alike shows also genetic similarity-- 
difference is in the *choices* they made. We even have Dumbledore 
*saying* this. It's our choices that make us what we are, not our 
upbringing, abilities or anything you don't have any say upon.

<snip about Doubles>

> We've already noticed an Ambivalence double (the Father), and
> Voldemort is obviously an Antithetical double to Harry. Do any more 
> of these types of doubles turn up in HP?

Not that I notice... but there are some similarity between Draco and 
Dudley - by character, not by outer looks.
 
> ARE GOOD AND EVIL BOUND CLOSELY TOGETHER 

First to say, I don't believe in abolute moralities. I've never seen 
a moral code that'd fit in every situation. Being Good and being law-
following aren't exactly the same thing. Laws can *also* be wrong.
 
> 1. Characters
> In Post 23737, Pippin wrote, succinctly, "In Rowling's world we 
have 
> met no character who personifies the forces of good as thoroughly 
as 
> Voldemort personifies evil."
> 
> Voldemort personified evil, that is clear. We have never seen him, 
> in any of his incarnations, do anything that could be deemed 
> deliberately good or helpful (although an argument can be made that 
> he was inadvertently helpful to the students of Hogwarts back in 
the 
> 40s, when he managed to get Aragog out of the castle).
> 
> Have we, however, met no character who thoroughly personified the 
> forces of good?
> Harry? He's done some things which are against the law - wizarding 
> and Muggle.

Laws are imperfect... In general, Harry has broken rules mainly to 
defend human rights of others - or his own; And I think laws exist to 
guarantee those very rights. Breaking the letter of law, but 
defending it's spirit.

> Dumbledore? He has probably violated the law in not reporting 
> Sirius' location to the Ministry or reporting that he is an 
> unregistered animagus, but he has good reasons for doing so, 
doesn't 
> he? 

Yes. It accounts for defending a man who's under a life-threat due to 
having been sent to jail *without trial*, for something he didn't 
even commit.

>But what about the discussion we've had here about opportunities 
> for machination behind the scenes? Is it good or evil to put 
> adolescents in harm's way, even if it's for a noble cause? Many 
> people on this list would probably frown at countries who allow 
> children - 13, 14 - to become soldiers. Why don't we frown on a 
> novel where an aged headmaster may have done the same sort of thing 
> to an 11 year old - turned him into a soldier without even really 
> explaining the battle he's to fight? When is such an act good? When 
> is it evil?

He's not excactly *putting* him there, is he? The evil is always 
coming to hunt Harry, or Harry takes it upon himself to act. 
Dumbledore is mainly giving him means to, and giving support later so 
that he can understand and accept in order to heal. In any case - 
it's Harry's choice.

> Perhaps Lily will be the complete exemplar of goodness - but for us 
> to accept that now would mean concluding that she didn't know that 
> her husband was an unregistered animagus, which would then say 
> certain things about *their* relationship, or that there is no 
> obligation to turn in an unregistered animagus.

1) We don't know for certain James never registered. He was dead when 
Hermione looked at the list and would not be on it because of that.

2) James might never have told her - because doing so would have 
meant telling her also somebody else's secret.

3) They were under protection of a Secret-Keeper who *also* was 
unregistered animagus - it'd be only fair to keep *his* secret.

4) It can be questioned does Ministry have a right to insist on 
registration at all, particularly during Voldemort's reign, when 
being secret animagi could save one's life. How'd you feel if your 
society expected you to registrate for being able to do something to 
yourself that others are not, for the reason that this ability puts 
you into suspicion of using it wrong?

> 2. Actions & Words
> On a smaller level, what determines whether an act is "good" 
> or "evil"? Here's a set of examples from Book 3:
> Harry is not supposed to go to Hogsmeade, but sneaks there via the 
> Map, then uses the cloak to stay unseen. Is this good or evil?

Neither - merely an adolescent reaction to the situation. I dare say 
that every adolescent in a similar situation would have done the same.
It was being 13.

> Draco is allowed to be in Hogsmeade, and when he sees Harry there, 
> knowing that Harry is not allowed to go, he tells on him to a 
> teacher. Is this good or evil?

This *would* count for good. It's not like any group Draco is a 
member of would except any different.

> Ron lies to Snape to try to keep Harry from being punished. Is this 
> good or evil?

Ron is following teen-age norms but breaking adult-norms. Him being 
teen-ager, this is acceptable. He's also showing understanding to his 
friend who isn't likely to get understanding from *anyone* else. 
Protecting a friend -- I'd say it goes for good, all things 
considered.

> Snape, who believes Draco's accusation, says mean things about 
> Harry's father while accusing Harry of breaking the school rule. Is 
> this good or evil?

Evil... though I prefer the word wrong. Telling an orphaned kid his 
parents were bad, is just about the worst thing to do!

> Lupin chastises Harry for breaking the school rule. Is this good or 
> evil?
> Lupin, who knows that Harry broke the school rule, does not punish 
> him in the traditional way, with detentions, or a report to his 
head 
> of house or the headmaster. Is this good or evil?

I'd say he acted right so far as he could. He managed to prevent 
*both* further rule-breaking *and* Harry committing suicide to be 
with his late parents. He was unable to deal with the reason, but did 
well with dealing the symptoms.

> How does someone's movitation affect whether an act is good or evil?
> Lupin's motivation above may've been self-preservation; letting his 
> higher-ups know about the rule breaking would've let Dumbledore 
know 
> about the Map and perhaps about the Animagi as well.
> Draco's motivation may've been to get Harry expelled; does a 
> motivation make a "proper" or "good" act evil?

We don't *know* what their motivations were! Therefore, I'm going to 
give them us much as not trying to make such acts *evil* by mere 
speculation.

> 3. Themes in Literature
> One of the oldest themes in literature is the triumph of good over 
> evil. While the HP canon is still open, and at this juncture, it's 
> impossible to tell where good and evil stand on the continuum of 
> each character (other than perhaps Harry and Voldemort), what 
> factors do we, the readers, use to determine whether a character or 
> an action is evil or not? In Book 3, even at the end, did anyone 
> think that Harry's request to turn Wormtail in was anything but a 
> good decision? What would the Diggorys say about that decision at 
> the end of Book 4? 

The act of saving a life of PP. I think it *was* a good deed, even 
when considering events of Book 4. What about the decision to share 
the Cup? It was also a *good* choice. Just because there were *two* 
persons making an evil deed afterwards, didn't make Harry's choices 
any less good.

> OPPOSITES & SIMILARITIES
> 
> Do any of these pairs/groups function as doubles (they might not)? 
If
> so, which kind? What function might this doubling have in the Grand
> Scheme of Things?
> 
> Harry and James

Definate similarity- everyone tells Harry he's like James. It did 
have a function in PoA when Harry mistook his older self as his 
father, as well as Harry's Patronus. Why Voldemort was out to kill 
James and Harry but not Lily may also be explained by this.

> Harry and Lockhart

Opposites considering fame... Choice for what to do with fame.

> Harry, Ron, Hermione

Well... they all have *something* in common with JKR, but Harry and 
Hermione more so. (Anyone else read Sean Smith's biography of JKR?)

> Dumbledore and Voldemort
Powerful wizards with opposing ideas of everything. Choice of what to 
do with power.

> Sirius, James, Peter, Remus (aka The Marauders) and their animal 
> selves)

Rat's are generally survivors, but they also spread Black Death. Goes 
with Peter (who did survive).
James as Stag. Big, noble and noticeable but animal of prey. Goes 
fine with James.
Sirius and Dog. Name, loyalty, currently living like a dog - and: 
canine.
Remus' wolf... canine - therefore has something in common with 
Sirius - loyalty again. Also, Wolf is freer than a dog - but both 
need their pack. Something indeed.

> Harry and Draco
Very *unlike* each other, but both live in the footsteps of their 
father's.

> Ron and Draco

Family-pride for both. Adopted their fathers' hostilities and 
concepts, but Ron less.

> McGonagall, Snape, and Dumbledore

Ahh... leader and "hands".

> McGonagall and Trelawney
Two so much unlike each other, but *do* have similarities:
* forgive rule-breaking for talent
* enthusiasm for their own talent
* True Sight for Trelawney /Animagi-transformation for McGonagall, 
*both* in 3rd book! the prime of their subject.

> McGonagall and Hermione

Similarities... just rule-following concepts for most part. And 
transfiguration: Hermione *was* best of the class in it - and 
McGonagall teaches it.

> Crouch Sr. and Ludo Bagman
Hmm... Gambling and regretting of unseen crimes.

> Sirius and Snape

Ah... Very different ideas of what should be done! Or what *was* done.
Both very stubborn. But I tend to agree with Sirius more.

> Lily and Hermione

Both Muggle-born witches on top of class. I think Hermione will be 
Head-girl.

> Snape and James

Do they have *anything* in common? All we know of them is that James 
saved Snape, but Snape hates James.

> Ginny and Lily

Don't know if these girls have anything in common but their looks.

> Snape and Lupin

Opposites: Snape presents worst kind of teacher and Lupin the best.

> Dudley and Draco

*Very* much alike... Mirror-image, I'd say. Dursleys hate wizards as 
much as Malfoys hate Muggles.

--- Finwitch





From buffyeton at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 29 19:38:15 2002
From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (EtonBuffy)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:38:15 -0000
Subject: Harry's Family
Message-ID: <aak7f7+9oq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38298

I was just re-reading Sorcerer's Stone and a question popped into my 
head.  If Harry has no other family than the Dursleys, and it is 
quoted often in the book that Mrs. Dursley pretends that she does not 
even have a sister, how does she know that her sister is pregnant, 
let alone the name of her son?  





From sopranoham at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 29 20:47:42 2002
From: sopranoham at yahoo.com (Soprano Ham)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucious as Minister of Magic ( was Re: Voldemort good?)
In-Reply-To: <31.26270741.29fef7c4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20020429204742.332.qmail@web13006.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38299

Hello,
--- Chelsea2162 at aol.com wrote:
>     Aiye. While I was reading this, I was hit with
> the horrible notion that 
> what if Lucious really DID take over as MoM in one
> of the future books? 
--SNIPPED--
Now, if someon 
> had to take over for Fudge, Lucius would be in the
> position to do so. He 
> would obviously agree with Fudge and deny any rumor
> that Voldemort was back 
> in the slightest. By doing this, he'd gain the trust
> of MoM workers, while at 
> the same time making things much easier for
> Voldemort to gain back all this 
> powers. Any thoughts?
> *Chelsea*

I'd like to ring in on this. I don't think Lucius
would be in a position for this job, regardless of his
loyalties as he is not employed in the ministry. In
GoF we see that Crouch was originally up for the job
but due to the incident with his son and his
subsequent decline in popularity the top job went to
Fudge. Both of whom were already high up in the ranks
of the ministry.

All the best.
Sop

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com




From meboriqua at aol.com  Mon Apr 29 21:44:14 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:44:14 -0000
Subject: Ron's prejudices (Was: prejudice in the WW (was: If I had...
In-Reply-To: <172.7713f25.29fdf89c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aakere+irvd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38300

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lanabana at a... wrote:

>I don't think Ron will turn evil on us or anything....but he does 
have a lot of growing up to do.>

Ah, people are misunderstanding me.  I never said I didn't like Ron 
and I certainly didn't say he would become evil.  I don't see Ron 
"turning" evil because I don't see evil in him now.  However, I do see 
him as a prime candidate as a pawn for someone else's potentially evil 
plans.    

I know that Harry was the only student to successfully fight the 
Imperius Curse, but Ron's inability to get it out of his system was 
pruposely noted by JKR.  There was no mention of Hermione at all 
(which led me to ask about that a few months back).  JKR, being the 
master at foreshadowing that she is, seems to be hinting at something 
here... to me, anyway. 

I also very much agree that Ron has quite a bit of growing to do (as 
does Draco, Hermione and even *gasp* my beloved Harry), but I never 
liked his comments about Eloise Midgen or the nasty comments he made 
to Hermione at the Yule Ball simply because she was there with Krum.  
I am guilty of letting my emotions get the best of me.  Thinking of my 
own experiences makes me worry for Ron.  I am looking forward to 
seeing Ron think things through before jumping to conclusions the way 
he has tended to do so far.

--jenny from ravenclaw, one of the original members of C.R.A.B., but 
now not as strong ************************************




From Ahketsi at aol.com  Mon Apr 29 21:08:58 2002
From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:08:58 EDT
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again/SPEW
Message-ID: <88.1786e6c1.29ff106a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38301

Just a comment here on SPEW. I mentioned this before but I don't think anyone 
noticed. Why would Hermione, who is obviuosly very intelligent, create a name 
for her cause that has the acronym SPEW? This funny name obviously reduces 
the credibility of her cause. Hermione may not think the same as her peers, 
but even she could see this. It was a ridiculous mistake on her part, one 
that I cannot see her making. What do you all think?

-Ahketsi




From heidit at netbox.com  Mon Apr 29 21:17:26 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Family
In-Reply-To: <aak7f7+9oq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020429211726.23471.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38302


--- EtonBuffy <buffyeton at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Real-To:  "EtonBuffy" <buffyeton at yahoo.com>
> 
> I was just re-reading Sorcerer's Stone and a
> question popped into my 
> head.  If Harry has no other family than the
> Dursleys, and it is 
> quoted often in the book that Mrs. Dursley pretends
> that she does not 
> even have a sister, how does she know that her
> sister is pregnant, 
> let alone the name of her son?  
> 

Just because Petunia is ingoring Lily's existence
doesn't mean that Lily is ignoring Petunia. It's
entirely possible that Lily sent her sister an
announcement when Harry was born, and even that she's
sent pictures since then - or sent the 1980 Potter
Family Holiday Newsletter (do people do
end-of-the-year newsletters in the UK? Answer on OT
Chatter, please).

This, of course, leads us into the wonderful guesswork
(noncanon based) about what the Durselys' reaction of
a moving baby photo would be - and perhaps the reason
they don't have any pictures of Harry in the house
(even in the background of something) is because they
were concerned that he'd be moving in every picture,
not just "wizarding" ones. 

heidi

=====
heidi tandy

They say its a sign of mental health to hold apparently contradictory ideas in your mind. The world of late has been a particularly exotic stew of horror and beauty. There are killers, there are saints. The trick is to find the right spot on the spectrum between abject despair and total obliviousness. And then carry on...
Joel Achenbach

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com



From alina at distantplace.net  Mon Apr 29 22:59:00 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:59:00 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Family
References: <aak7f7+9oq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00ab01c1efd1$73ccf5e0$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38303

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: EtonBuffy 

  I was just re-reading Sorcerer's Stone and a question popped into my 
  head.  If Harry has no other family than the Dursleys, and it is 
  quoted often in the book that Mrs. Dursley pretends that she does not 
  even have a sister, how does she know that her sister is pregnant, 
  let alone the name of her son?  


Well, we are never given the time when Lily and Petunia's parents died, so it is possible that when Lily got pregnant their parents were still alive and they were the ones who told Petunia the news. 
I also believe that while the Dursleys pretend that Petunia doesn't have a sister Lily wouldn't go quite that far and it's possible that the Dursleys received and invitation to Harry's christening (he has a godfather, so he must've been baptized, right? I'm not Christian, so I wouldn't know for sure). 

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/2002


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Mon Apr 29 23:51:51 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:51:51 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
References: <aajqjk+hbq4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004801c1efd8$d5b57d20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38304

Well..I have about an hour before Newfoundland Raiders training, so I thought I'd write a little (ha!) response to this..(BTW..I'm not actually going to Newfoundland, I'm just subjecting myself to the same torture as the kids that are going are.  Why, you ask?  Because I'm masochistic?  Honestly, I don't know..It's *sleeting/blizzarding/rain/hailing* out right now. Oooo..oh well..I guess it's an excuse to wear my silk underwear ^_^)


Heidi Tandy:
>The Secret Sharer
>Named after the Joseph Conrad story by the same name, the protagonist
>recognizes a part of himself in the double and therefore feels he has
>a secret kinship with his double.

While it hasn't be explored much as of yet...perhaps Harry will begin to feel this same kind of kinship with Tom Riddle/LV?  We already know he has (resolved?) issues with the "strange likenesses" Tom pointed out in CoS.  Perhaps he hasn't quite come to terms with this yet.  Maybe as he starts asking those questions JKR promised in OotP and starts learning more about his parents (especially Lily) and background, the similarities between Tom and him will become harder to explain away.

Perhaps he will notice the similarities in personality that he and Tom share, the circumstances and experiences they hold in common.  Perhaps he will find it therefore harder to paint Volde-Tom as completely evil in his head, maybe he will have doubts about where his own loyalties should lie (although I think this last is very unlikely, Harry inherently a very good person -- I don't think he could be evil if he tried.)

Heidi again:
>The Antithetical Self
>Often the most obvious kind of double, this double stands in an
>antagonistic relationship with the hero but nevertheless is very much
>like the hero, as if they were opposite sides of the same coin. (Post
>38132 addresses the Harry/Voldemort connection rather well.)

Hey that was me!! *is excited* I'm in part of the Official Phillip Nel Discussion Question.  Oh, wow. ^_~ *glows*

...What *exactly* is the Phillip Nel Question, anyway?  I mean, besides what I'm replying to..

But yes, it is apparent that Harry and Voldemort (or Tom Riddle) have this connection, at least.  IMO, JKR is trying to show us (again), in a more subtle way, how *what you choose* matters more than the personality traits/abilities you were born with.

>Fragmentation of the Mind
>Represented by _Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_ and _The Three Faces of 
>Eve_,
>this kind of doubling results from dissociation, in which different
>parts of the mind begin to act independently of one another.

Hmmm...I have always kind of thought that Crouch Jr. was sort of hosting a couple different personalities in there somewhere, now that you mention it..I mean, the man was obviously pretty unstable -- so how did he pull of the part of a caring mentor so convincingly?

Answer:  He actually *became* Mad Eye in his mind.  He took on all of Moody's traits and made them his own.  I wouldn't be surprised if even *he* didn't know he wasn't really Moody at times.  As far as I know, grafting another person's personality on like that is perfectly feasible, especially if one is already unstable at the time.  Of course, it's very unhealthy.

>Voldemort personified evil, that is clear. We have never seen him, 
>in any of his incarnations, do anything that could be deemed 
>deliberately good or helpful (although an argument can be made that 
>he was inadvertently helpful to the students of Hogwarts back in the 
>40s, when he managed to get Aragog out of the castle).

However, in his Tom Riddle persona, he does have traits meant to draw sympathy from the reader.  He is, after all, an orphan who was in a very bad situation.  I think, as readers, JKR means for us to feel bad for Volde-Tom, but ultimately remember that past injustices to not render one's present-day actions OK.


>Perhaps Lily will be the complete exemplar of goodness - but for us 
>to accept that now would mean concluding that she didn't know that 
>her husband was an unregistered animagus, which would then say 
>certain things about *their* relationship, or that there is no 
>obligation to turn in an unregistered animagus.

Oh, but following the law has nearly nothing to do with inherent Goodness or Evilness.  In fact, the reason the laws are *there* are to steer people whose own sense of Good and Evil are not sufficient to keep them from harming themselves and others.  JKR does not mean for us to look down on James because he was an unregistered animagi -- in fact, she paints even this aspect of him as the noble and brave stag.  Likewise, Lupin's fault is not that he didn't tell the authorities that his friends were breaking the law -- but rather he didn't tell *Dumbledore* when the information was vital to the current situation.  And he didn't do it because he was *scared* and it would have been emotionally hard for him to admit to Dumbledore that he had been withholding pertinent information.

It seems as if in the Potterverse, the only true crime is fear, the only deadly sin is weakness, etc.

>2. Actions & Words
>On a smaller level, what determines whether an act is "good" 
>or "evil"? Here's a set of examples from Book 3:
>Harry is not supposed to go to Hogsmeade, but sneaks there via the 
>Map, then uses the cloak to stay unseen. Is this good or evil?

Wrong, unwise.  Not evil.  Childish, immature, spontaneous.  Harry acted without thinking of the consequences, and this was wrong -- however to accuse him of "evil" for rule-breaking is hardly fair.  We all break the rules every now and then.

>Draco is allowed to be in Hogsmeade, and when he sees Harry there, 
>knowing that Harry is not allowed to go, he tells on him to a 
>teacher. Is this good or evil?

Hmm..again, neither.  Just a child's wish to get another child he doesn't like in a whole lot of dung.  Petty, not nice, definitely not Good...but not evil either.

>Ron lies to Snape to try to keep Harry from being punished. Is this 
>good or evil?

And yet again, neither -- just self-preservation really (he's an accomplice you know) and the desire to help his friend.  Not angelic, certainly..but, jeez give the kids some room to breathe.  Snape is one nasty *cough* word-that-I-can't-say-on-this-list..

>Snape, who believes Draco's accusation, says mean things about 
>Harry's father while accusing Harry of breaking the school rule. Is 
>this good or evil?

Guuugher...Well, not *evil* per se..but closer to it than anything else mentioned on this list.  Spiteful, Nasty, Mean is the most horrible way possible -- and I don't think he would have cared if he *actually* knew for certain that Harry hadn't been breaking rules (theoretically) -- he'll use any excuse to verbally assault Harry.

>Lupin chastises Harry for breaking the school rule. Is this good or 
>evil?

Yes, it's the action of a responsible adult.

>Lupin, who knows that Harry broke the school rule, does not punish 
>him in the traditional way, with detentions, or a report to his head 
>of house or the headmaster. Is this good or evil?

He's afraid to tell the Headmaster, IMHO -- because this would expose all the things he has been hiding from AD for so long.  And he's afraid to do this.  Afraid of being shameful in the Headmaster's eyes...afraid to admit that he is withholding information about Sirius Black (whom everyone believes is out to get Harry).  Yes, it was wrong -- and being afraid doesn't count for anything.  However, the sin here is, again, Fear.  An unwillingness to do "what is right, instead of what is easy".  However, it is not evil.  


>How does someone's motivation affect whether an act is >good or evil?

Personally, I think it counts for just about everything in most situations.  Some might argue that people such as Hitler had good *intentions* in their own view -- they wanted to rid the world of something they felt was destructive/evil -- however, I do not believe this is actually the case.  Hitler didn't kill millions of people because he wanted to help the world -- he did it because he had an all-consuming desire for power.  The same goes for Voldemort.


>Draco's motivation may've been to get Harry expelled; does a 
>motivation make a "proper" or "good" act evil?

Again, not evil -- but it makes it "not good", IMHO.

>In Book 3, even at the end, did anyone 
>think that Harry's request to turn Wormtail in was anything but a 
>good decision? What would the Diggorys say about that decision at 
>the end of Book 4? 

Ssssss...I don't know.  I think it would have killed something inside Harry to have Peter Pettigrew's "blood on his hands" so to speak -- however, *someone* really should have killed that man anyway.  Remus and Sirius being the prime candidates, of course.  *thinks* I wonder if Hermione could've done it.  We never really get her opinion on the matter now, do we?  At least not that I can remember.  I think, of course, they should have let Harry think and realize for himself that he wouldn't do it -- and then I think Sirius should have blasted him anyway.

It's not pretty, but it's necessary.  People that weak are a threat to everyone.  Sometimes you have to do things like that because you have to..another case of what is Right instead of what is Easy.  And my opinion has nothing to do with how PP's escape eventually led to Cedric's death.  It's useless to judge someone's actions in hindsight.  All you can do is try your best in the present.

laura




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From the_stolen_child at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 29 22:32:00 2002
From: the_stolen_child at hotmail.com (The Dark One .)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:32:00 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Family
Message-ID: <F1948FZgNVWa60yGuOJ00004c58@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38305

Maybe Lily sent her a baby-card or something like that when Harry was born? 
Or...*thinks*...there were more cousins (like grandparents) and they died in 
the meantime?


>If Harry has no other family than the Dursleys, and it is
>quoted often in the book that Mrs. Dursley pretends that she does not
>even have a sister, how does she know that her sister is pregnant,
>let alone the name of her son?

"The Dark One"


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Apr 30 03:03:14 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:03:14 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's chess ability
References: <aa.ac4be96.29fefa3c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <009f01c1eff3$91c85040$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38306


Chelsea writes:
>    I don't understand why after all the debating, and aall the canon 
>evidence, people keep saying that Ron is weak. (Not trying to be rude here.)

S'ok. ^_^ I, for one, cannot understand why people keep on insisting that Hermione is "bossy" and a "know-it-all" *scoffs* what are they *on*? ^_^

However, since it's my post your replying to here, I just thought I'd give you my take on the whole Ron = weakness thing.

Well, firstly, for me -- it's just a gut feeling.  My belly just says "Ron is vulnerable.  Ron is weak."  And my belly is *usually* right.  (not always, but pretty much all the time) ^_^

There are, however, a few things in the books that I can point out specifically that probably contribute to my belly's opinion. Read on, dear Chelsea...

 
>Some of the major canon events in which Ron has shown undoubting bravery, and 
>true leadership and logic skills, would be the Chess Game in SS/PS, and when 
>he stands up to what he believes are Murderer!Sirius, and EvilWerewolf!Lupin. 

First, yes.  I agree.  Well..not completely *sheepish smile*.   Yes, Ron showed a certain type of bravery in the chess scene.  I never doubted that he was willing to sacrifice himself for his friends.  And he does get a bit snappish with two armed adults who (as far as he knows) are homicidal maniacs with a grudge against his best friend.  But, to me, that's not bravery.  It's just Ron's way of dealing with any tense situation.  Get mad.  Storm off.  (Unless he has a broken leg, of course).  Personally, I think his attitude towards these "evil murders" was..well, unwise.  I mean, if Sirius really *was* a psycho killer -- I mean, what did he expect to do?  He would have said "To get to Harry you'll have to go through me.." and Sirius would have said "OK." Killed him, and went on to kill Harry.

^_^ It reminds me a bit of a line from Cassie Claire fan fiction -- "Gryffindor:  slowing down evil by getting in the way." (or something to that effect).  Really, kind of pathetic..and kind of dumb.  He should have kept quiet, hoping that Sirius would sort of forget about him, and grab any chance he had to turn the tables.  *That's* the brave, logical thing to do.  Keep your head in a very bad situation.  That way, if Sirius had been Evil, he would still have had a chance to help Harry. Actually, this is one of the scenes that *I* feel points to Ron's vulnerability and weakness...he is easily angered, and when angry, he doesn't *think*.  I can see him shooting his mouth off at a crucial moment and getting someone killed as a result.  People with such little control over their emotions are a wild card -- a liability, a weakness.  In a word they're BAD NEWS.  Okay..that's two words..but it's also an acronym!! (go team!)

Buddy Acts Dumbly, Needling Evil Wizard of Slytherin

See..B A D N E W S.

On the other hand, his line did add to the dramatic effect  

>..but I have to say that Ron wasn't displaying a one-time act of 
>random bravery - he was put to the test, and he passed with flying colors.
 
Alright.  I see what you mean here.  However, it's not that I don't think he's noble and brave *in that way*.  Just that, in a practical sense, his lack of control over his emotions is a weakness that *will* effect the Trio in some negative way, mark my words.

In other words, I wouldn't want him at my side in the middle of the war.  Sure, he might throw himself in front of me and as a bullet zooms towards me, but what if something more than self sacrifice is needed?  I'd much, MUCH rather have Hermione or Harry. 

>Ron said something along the lines 
>of 'If you want to get to Harry, you'll have to get past us first" to Sirius. 
>He is displaying an incredible amount of bravery and leadership here. 

Leadership?  I don't understand what you mean here.  Sure, he's being impulsive and yes, brave (in his own way), however, I don't see how you believe he is taking a leadership role in this scene.

well...gotta run..

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Apr 30 03:09:10 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:09:10 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House-Elfs and Slavery Again/SPEW
References: <88.1786e6c1.29ff106a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00a801c1eff4$66169820$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38307

Ahketsi:
>Just a comment here on SPEW. I mentioned this before but I don't think anyone 
>noticed. Why would Hermione, who is obviuosly very intelligent, create a name 
>for her cause that has the acronym SPEW? This funny name obviously reduces 
>the credibility of her cause. Hermione may not think the same as her peers, 
>but even she could see this. It was a ridiculous mistake on her part, one 
>that I cannot see her making. What do you all think?

Honestly, I think JKR was just providing us with a little comic relief there...

umm..don't want this to be a one liner...

So, everybody, how do you think the weather is in the Wizarding World??

laura




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Tue Apr 30 04:08:14 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:08:14 +1000
Subject: Good Voldemort, cautious Hermione, ordinary Ron
Message-ID: <006601c1effc$c1159a20$342adccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 38308

theresa:
> Forget Evil! Ron, how about Good! Voldemort?
I'm sure someone can come up with an acronym for this.<

Simple and sweet?  V.I.M. (Voldemort Is Misunderstood).

Alternatively, you could argue that Voldemort's actions are the product of his traumatic youth in the orphanage, and one he has come to terms with this (perhaps after a little counselling from Hermione), he will let go of his resentment and turn into a kindly herpetologist who makes generous donations to orphan welfare and prosthetic limb research, moving on from his days as an:

O.V.E.R.C.H.A.R.G.I.N.G. P.O.W.E.R.M.O.N.G.E.R.

(Once Voldemort's Exorcised Reprehensible Childhood, He'll Alter Radically, Growing Into Nagini's Guardian, Protector Of Women, Evil Renouncing Orphan Nurturer, Gently Entering Retirement.

David:
> She does have a slight tendency to Poirot-like concealment of her 
thoughts (why didn't she say 'Basilisk' or 'Beetle Animagus' before 
rushing off to the library?  In the former case it would have spoilt 
the plot but saved Harry, Ron and Lockhart no little difficulty). < 

I actually put it down to Hermione's need to be Right all the time.  She's a perfectionist, she's into precision, she's the sort who won't expose her hypotheses until she's done all the research and can be reasonably sure of her conclusions.  Though I agree that it's all a bit convenient for JKR that way...

Rohit (columbiatexan) (quoting me):
>> Poor old Ron, eh? It's just not fair. Overshadowed by his brother,
>>overshadowed by his best friends...
>
>Am I the only one who DOESN'T feel sorry for Ron or that he 
doesn't need a talent to make him "special"? <

Actually, that comment o' mine was just a little lead-up for the WANDS CRISS-CROSS acronym... I in fact have no problem with Ron being an ordinary kid.  Let ordinary people have a representative in the series, I say.  After all, by definition *most* people are ordinary, aren't they?  In the ol' competitive individualistic societies "ordinary" has become a  bit of an epithet (in fact, in Australia "ordinary" is regularly used to mean "bad", though that's also got to do with the Australian habit of understatement)... being ordinary is being undistinguished, worthless, of no consequence... there's this message that you *have* to be special in some way, be uniquely talented at something, and so on to be of any value, define yourself, stand out from the crowd.  I say let Ron represent the intrinsic value instead of comparative value message, show that you don't have to be better than other people to be worthwhile.  Besides which, having all three of the Trio miraculously turn out to have supernatural ability at something would be a bit excessive, in my literary balance book...

Tabouli

P.S. Am booking my June to July whirlwind 5 week world tour this week, encompassing the UK, US, Thailand and a dash of Europe!  (probably Geneva and Paris, so I'd better try and resuscitate that French I used to speak).  For further details, see OT...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From chynarose8 at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 30 04:48:20 2002
From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (Michelle Strauss)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:48:20 -0400
Subject: Leading Azkaban Insanity Cause
Message-ID: <F221JmFS7kqQHFds7b8000016b7@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38309

I recently began thinking about what the leading cause of insanity really 
was for prisoners in Azkaban. Is this purely a side effect of prolonged 
dementor exposure? Or does it also have something to do with the subtle 
torture of forcing the prisoners to loose touch with the true passing of 
time and cross the Eternity Horizon (the point where time looses all 
meaning, usually seeming to be longer than it really is)?
@---<-- Chyna Rose, last seen heading towards Theory Bay dragging a battered 
but recently repainted skiff.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From alina at distantplace.net  Tue Apr 30 05:18:32 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:18:32 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Leading Azkaban Insanity Cause
References: <F221JmFS7kqQHFds7b8000016b7@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <001201c1f006$7a04f5e0$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38310

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michelle Strauss 

  I recently began thinking about what the leading cause of insanity really 
  was for prisoners in Azkaban. Is this purely a side effect of prolonged 
  dementor exposure? Or does it also have something to do with the subtle 
  torture of forcing the prisoners to loose touch with the true passing of 
  time and cross the Eternity Horizon (the point where time looses all 
  meaning, usually seeming to be longer than it really is)?
  @---<-- Chyna Rose, last seen heading towards Theory Bay dragging a battered 
  but recently repainted skiff.


Even if such methods were once in use I think they would be abolished by now. The Wizarding World seems to be leaning in towards "humane treatment" ideals, which isn't surprising after what people had to go through with Voldemort. So I think it's purely Dementor Exposure, really, people being social animals don't need much more than isolation to go insane. And when it's isolation coupled with complete absense of any happy thoughts it really doesn't need any enhancers. 

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/2002


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 30 05:23:11 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 05:23:11 -0000
Subject: Good Voldemort, cautious Hermione, ordinary Ron
In-Reply-To: <006601c1effc$c1159a20$342adccb@price>
Message-ID: <aal9nv+jppo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38311

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
> I actually put it down to Hermione's need to be Right all the 
time.  She's a perfectionist, she's into precision, she's the sort 
who won't expose her hypotheses until she's done all the research and 
can be reasonably sure of her conclusions.  Though I agree that it's 
all a bit convenient for JKR that way...

Like myself, Hermione is a Virgo. In fact, Hermione and I share the 
same birth day, September 19. And I am very much like Hermione, 
especially at work. When asked to look into a problem, I find a 
variety of solutions, all rated by ROI re: time and effort, plus a 
step in our process to avoid the problem in the future.

Happily, a glass of wine in the evenings helps mellow this Virgo out 
considerably. :-)

Zoe




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Tue Apr 30 06:24:05 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:24:05 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's chess ability
In-Reply-To: <009f01c1eff3$91c85040$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
References: <aa.ac4be96.29fefa3c@aol.com>
 <009f01c1eff3$91c85040$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <14631843757.20020429232405@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38312



Hi,

Monday, April 29, 2002, 8:03:14 PM, Laura wrote:

>  People with such little
> control over their emotions are a wild card -- a liability, a weakness. 
> In a word they're BAD NEWS.  Okay..that's two words..but it's also an
> acronym!! (go team!)

Um, so Harry, who went totally emotional in that same scene,
attacking Sirius, is also Bad News?
He's been known to "explode" in other emotional situations,
too.

And Hermione, who freezes up when things get dangerous, at
least sometimes.

But I'm also one of the people who see Hermione as not 100%
perfect ;)
In my opinion she *is* sometimes bossy, and can be a little
callous (not sure if this word is a bit too strong, English
is not my first language).

I wouldn't enjoy the books nearly as much, if everyone
were 100% good or bad, and the "heros" always did and said
the right things at the right time <g>.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Tue Apr 30 06:34:05 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 06:34:05 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question)
In-Reply-To: <004801c1efd8$d5b57d20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <aaldst+fkdj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38313

Heidi posed this discussion question:
> Why has Rowling drawn connections between Voldemort and Harry? In
> linking these characters so closely, is she suggesting some kinship
> between opposites? Are good and evil bound closely together?...

I see at least three functions served by the similarities between 
Voldemort and Harry. 

The first two functions are most visible in CoS. One function of the 
Harry - Voldemort similarities in CoS is to highlight Harry's 
morality.  Both Harry and Voldemort were orphaned or abandoned, and 
raised in cruel circumstances. Showing how bitter and vengeful Tom 
Riddle became reminds us of how remarkable it is that Harry is still 
kind and optimistic after these bad experiences.  

The second function is to heighten the dramatic tension.  In CoS, 
Harry is repeatedly tormented by the thought that he may be 
Slytherin's Heir, and thus evil.  His similarities with Tom Riddle 
make his fears more believable and poignant. 

So, in CoS, the similarities with Tom Riddle served as a plot device, 
designed to make the reader see Harry's goodness at the same time that 
Harry is himself questioning whether he is evil.  However, by the end 
of CoS, we are well aware that Harry survived circumstances that 
corrupted Tom Riddle, and we (and Harry) know that Harry is not the 
Heir of Slytherin.  So, the question is, will these similarities 
between Tom Riddle and Harry play a further role in the series?

I think that Harry's "am I good or evil?" doubts came very early in 
his development.  His doubts would be more meaningful later in the 
series, when he is older and perhaps has had to do some morally 
questionable act, such as kill a Death Eater.  However, even if Harry 
has another episode of soul-searching, I doubt that JKR will bring up 
the similarities with Tom Riddle again the way she did in CoS; it  
would be too repetitive.

This bring us to the third function that I see for the similarities 
between Voldemort and Harry.  JKR is emphasizing that only Harry can 
destroy Voldemort; Harry's similarity to Voldemort is an indication 
(and perhaps the cause) of his destiny as Voldemort's destroyer.  For 
example, Harry and Voldemort are similar in that their wands are 
"brothers"; therefore, only Harry's wand can counter Voldemort's. 

I'm not sure that this means "good and evil are bound together" in any 
meaningful way, however.  Rather, I see both Voldemort and Harry as 
the heirs to the conflict between Godric Gryffindor and Salazar 
Slytherin.  That is, they have a shared destiny, which leads to other 
similarities.  For example, it would not be possible to be the sole 
heir (of Gryffindor or of Slytherin) if one had both parents living, 
or had living siblings.  It would not be possible to fight as the 
representative of Gryffindor or Slytherin if one was not a talented 
wizard, nor could one be worthy of this role without a certain amount 
of suffering. 

There's plenty more to discuss in this question -- but that's enough 
for me now. 

Judy





From katgirl at lava.net  Tue Apr 30 07:05:12 2002
From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 07:05:12 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil + an apology about Re: Voldemort Good
In-Reply-To: <aajqjk+hbq4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aalfn8+h7ot@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38314

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:

> OPPOSITES & SIMILARITIES
> 
> Do any of these pairs/groups function as doubles (they might not)? 
If
> so, which kind? What function might this doubling have in the Grand
> Scheme of Things?
> 
> Harry and James
There are tremendous parallells between these two. Popular, 
Gryffindor, loved by their friends, hated by their enemies to extreme 
degrees. There are actually a lot of parallells between Marauder and 
modern times, many of which I'll bring up.

> Harry and Lockhart
Opposites. Lockhart will do anything to get attention and Harry 
wishes he had less.

> Harry, Ron, Hermione
The trio seem to represent three levels in everything. For example:
Academics. Hermione-Finds it extremely important, spends more work 
than is needed. Ron-Takes way of least work, though very bright. 
Harry-In between.

> Dumbledore and Voldemort
Absolute forces of good and evil-that we've seen so far, of course.

> Sirius, James, Peter, Remus (aka The Marauders) and their animal 
> selves)
Remus lost everyone closest to him in one night. Bang. How he 
received this news we'll probably never know. Maybe he got a phone 
call in the middle of the night from a distant friend of the order. 
Maybe he started his morning normally, but then happened to glance 
over at the headline of the Daily Prophet. Maybe he saw the revelers 
in the street, and asking them what it was about, got the news from a 
total stranger. Maybe Peter called him. "I'm going to go after 
Sirius." "What?" *click*

I'm getting off topic. Anyway. Remus is a wolf, therefore he needs a 
pack to be truly comfortable. He's been shunned all his life, which 
has made him, when he was already a very thoughtful and quiet person, 
withdrawn.

Sirius was imprisoned for something he didn't do, when he was the 
best person for the job. Perhaps this refers to dogs being blamed for 
things caused by others. His loyalty is also a likely link to his 
being a dog Animagus.

Peter was the rat. Rats are known for being sneaking, dirty, little 
creatures that cower in the sewers. Much so for Peter. He hides in 
the shadows of the best, always ready to turn on them when they lose 
power.

Stags are known for being elusive, (the Fidelius charm) brave, and 
strong. But they are also known for being hunted. Oddly enough, 
hunters sometimes use dogs to help track down prey, but this can be 
traced back to the story-Sirius is the one who suggests using Peter 
as the Secret-Keeper.

> Harry and Draco
Rivals, both had/have powerful parents in the WW. Possible parallells 
to James and Snape.

> Ron and Draco
Ron and Draco are possibly worse enemies than Harry and Draco. Ron 
hates Draco's slurs on his family and Muggle-borns, and Draco hates 
Ron and his family because poverty is one of his chief fears. There's 
also obviously the issue of Voldemort, which causes even larger 
problems, but even when Voldemort is defeated, they'll be enemies, 
even if they fought for the same side. This keeps pretty well with 
the history repeating itself theory-Sirius and Snape.

> McGonagall, Snape, and Dumbledore
Hmmm. I don't know what to say about these three. Dumbledore is the 
leader for good, and McGonagall and Snape are more or less his 
lieutenants in the battle. If he were to die, or be unable to carry 
out his duties in any way, McGonagall would take his place, as we see 
in CoS. If anything were to happen to McGonagall, Snape would take 
her place. And if anything were to happen to Snape...well, let's not 
go into that.

> McGonagall and Trelawney
McGonagall resents Trelawney because she, like Hermione, believes 
that Trelawney is an old fraud. Trelawny in turn resents McGonagall's 
inability to believe in Divination.

> McGonagall and Hermione
These two are alike-I don't think they're parallells of each other, 
but Hermione certainly looks up to McGonagall.

> Crouch Sr. and Ludo Bagman
Both have made choices they greatly regret.

> Sirius and Snape
Sirius almost killed Snape. While I don't think Sirius was being 
conciously malicious, he certainly didn't try to stop Snape. James 
was required to step in before anything happened.
We don't know exactly what feelings of contempt built up before this 
incident (And I'm sure we'll learn) but this can't be the start of 
it. Sirius might have still told Snape to press the knot on the 
Willow-he PROBABLY would have-but I think that Sirius was having a 
bad day, and Snape asking about and probably insulting Remus was only 
making things worse. So Sirius took it out on Snape. If nothing had 
happened before, later, when Sirius pulled himself together, he would 
have gone after Snape. But as it was, Sirius didn't go after Snape. 
So the Willow incident wasn't the beginning, not by a long shot.

> Lily and Hermione
Top of their year, muggle born.

> Snape and James
Snape and James didn't like each other, that's for sure. But James 
obviously cared enough to go and save Snape's life. Snape didn't meet 
this with happiness-on the contrary, the bitter irony made him hate 
the Marauders even more. He owed his life to his worse enemy. 
(Actually, I'd say Sirius was his worse enemy, but James and Snape 
were probably considered the worse of enemies.)

> Ginny and Lily
I can't think of anything.

> Snape and Lupin
I doubt that Snape's hate for Lupin comes out of suspecting that 
Lupin was in on it. Snape has typical prejudices against Lupin being 
a werewolf, but I don't think that was his only reason for hating 
him, since the Snape and Sirius hate had reached levels that couldn't 
be reached unless this had been going on for a long time. I don't 
know what these other things could be. Anyone have suggestions? 
> Dudley and Draco
I don't know if there is a connection. *goes to read other posts*


> 3. Themes in Literature
> One of the oldest themes in literature is the triumph of good over 
> evil. While the HP canon is still open, and at this juncture, it's 
> impossible to tell where good and evil stand on the continuum of 
> each character.

One of the main problems with the canon so far is that the characters 
and situations are portrayed in black/white, good/evil. While this 
seems to be changing as everyone ages and views change, change is 
coming slow. There are a few people who's sides on the war have been 
more or less set in stone: Harry, Hermione, Ron, Dumbledore, Sirius, 
Lupin, McGonagall, the Weasleys, Voldemort, Wormtail, and the Death 
Eaters.

There are a lot more people who seem to be on Dumbledore's side, 
which can be taken as a symbol of greater faith in good. However, the 
Death Eaters are a large group, probably enough to outweigh this. 
Going back to optimism for Dumbledore, however, his side seems more 
devoted. Here are two far-fetched ideas: Good!Macnair and Evil!Fred. 
Neither is believable, but Good!Macnair seems a bit more likely, no?

I'd also like to apologize for my reply in the "Voldemort Good?" 
Thread. I was certain I had signed it and changed the topic line 
to "Sirius's Fate (Was Re: Voldemort Good?)" but apparently I didn't.

-With humble apologies, Katherine.





From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Tue Apr 30 08:09:44 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:09:44 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
In-Reply-To: <aajqjk+hbq4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aaljg8+q5cq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38315

Heidi and Dicentra wrote:

> This week's question from the Phil Nel database...
> 
>  Why has Rowling drawn connections between Voldemort and Harry?  In
> linking these characters so closely, is she suggesting some kinship
> between opposites?  Are good and evil bound closely together?  Can 
> you think of other characters in the series who, though they appear 
> to be opposites, are in fact more alike than we initially suspect?
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 
> What does Tom think these similarities [between him and Harry] mean?

I believe he is afraid that Harry may in some sense be his equal 
rival.  He knows from Ginny that Harry as a baby defeated Voldemort.  
He is also trying to undermine Harry's confidence as a fighter for 
good - in which he temporarily and partially succeeds, as the later 
conversation with Dumbledore shows.

> What does Harry think they mean?

Harry is afraid that they may mean he is evil like Voldemort.

> What does Dumbledore think they mean?

Apart from the transfer at the time of the failed curse, he seems 
mainly concerned to convince Harry that they mean very little.  He 
presumably agrees with the Sorting Hat that Harry can be great. 
Whatever he further thinks is not for sale yet, as he said to Harry 
at the end of PS.

> What do YOU think they, and other connections that have been 
discussed in the books' subtext, mean? 

I don't know the bulk of the (snipped) literary examples given, even 
by reputation, and I'm afraid I know nothing of Enneagrams (post 
38132).  So apologies if this is repeating, but I think that it is 
possible that Voldemort is meant to be the complement or shadow of 
Harry.  The picture of Quirrell as a man with two faces is possibly a 
foreshadowing that in some sense it is only *together* that Harry and 
Voldemort are complete.  The exchanges that have already taken place 
between them (Parseltongue, blood), as well as their brother wands, 
could also symbolise this.  The message for the reader would then be 
that everybody has their own dark side, their own personal Voldemort 
who is sitting in the back of their head, acting subtly against the 
conscious interests of the visible face (V causes Harry's scar pain); 
what each person needs is to become aware of and and accept the 
existence of this part, take responsibility for it, and acknowledge 
that its actions are his own.

This is a fairly radical view of good and evil, and if it is really a 
componrent of JKR's thinking, would imply that V's ultimate fate is 
not to be killed in battle, but for whatever contribution he can make 
to be absorbed in some way into Harry.  The sort of thing that might 
happen, for example, would be for some sort of catastrophe to 
threaten the world (probably as a result of overzealous prosecution 
of the war by both sides), and for V to take up residence in Harry, 
as he has already done with Quirrell and Ginny, but with neither of 
them in control of their body.  The only way to stop the catastrophe 
is for them to agree to sacrifice themselves in some way, which they 
do.  Afterwards, they are both dead, or are a single new man.  I'm 
sorry, this is rank fanfic, and sounds very hackneyed put like that, 
but I'm only trying to get a point across that I don't understand 
very well myself.

> 
> *******************************************************************

> ARE GOOD AND EVIL BOUND CLOSELY TOGETHER 
> 
>
> Have we, however, met no character who thoroughly personified the 
> forces of good?
> Harry? He's done some things which are against the law - wizarding 
> and Muggle.
> Dumbledore? He has probably violated the law in not reporting 
> Sirius' location to the Ministry or reporting that he is an 
> unregistered animagus, but he has good reasons for doing so, 
doesn't 
> he? But what about the discussion we've had here about 
opportunities 
> for machination behind the scenes? Is it good or evil to put 
> adolescents in harm's way, even if it's for a noble cause? Many 
> people on this list would probably frown at countries who allow 
> children - 13, 14 - to become soldiers. Why don't we frown on a 
> novel where an aged headmaster may have done the same sort of thing 
> to an 11 year old - turned him into a soldier without even really 
> explaining the battle he's to fight? When is such an act good? When 
> is it evil?

If someone's intentions are good, and they are acting as responsibly 
as the limited wisdom they have allows, can that be evil?  One 
presumes that Dumbledore recognises that Harry is a focus of conflict 
whether he (H) likes it or not, and whatever he (D) does.  Dumbledore 
is taking chances, yes, but whatever he does he is taking chances: 
there is truly no safe option for Harry (or for us - all this 
business of parental permission slip signing makes adults *feel* 
better, but does it achieve anything for kids?).

I would say that JKR's message about personification of good, if that 
makes sense, is that you can only be considered good if you are 
prepared to make the kind of mistakes that can be judged to have been 
unethical after the fact if they go wrong.  IOW, 'pure' (ie law-
abiding, squeaky-clean, all-consequences-anticipating) goodness is 
impossible, even undesirable, in the Potterverse.

> Perhaps Lily will be the complete exemplar of goodness - but for us 
> to accept that now would mean concluding that she didn't know that 
> her husband was an unregistered animagus, which would then say 
> certain things about *their* relationship, or that there is no 
> obligation to turn in an unregistered animagus.

A bit of a digression, but I doubt that reporting of lawbreaking can 
be taken as a an absolute litmus for good and evil.  One is reminded 
of the old saw about the letter and the spirit.  However, I also 
doubt that Lily will be represented as a sort of latter-day Mary with 
an immaculate conception.  I think it entirely possible that she knew 
about Prongs, she laughed at the stories James and friends had to 
tell, had no intention of telling the MOM, and will still be put 
forward as a 'good' character, one whose example is to be followed. 

> 3. Themes in Literature
> One of the oldest themes in literature is the triumph of good over 
> evil. While the HP canon is still open, and at this juncture, it's 
> impossible to tell where good and evil stand on the continuum of 
> each character (other than perhaps Harry and Voldemort), what 
> factors do we, the readers, use to determine whether a character or 
> an action is evil or not?

I wonder if part of JKR's purpose in presenting morally ambiguous 
behaviour is to make the reader realise that they can be comfortable 
with not knowing or even caring if a given act is good or evil?  
Things are as they are, and we need to decide what to do about them, 
but having decided and done, there is no further judgement outside 
our conscience to face?

I certainly believe it is misconceived to try to rate people on a 
scale of shades of grey, where Voldemort scores 0 and Dumbledore 10.  
What is Lockhart's score?  Is it greater or less than Rita Skeeter's 
or Crouch Sr's?  Does Ron score more or less than Percy?  I am happy 
never to try to answer such questions.

> OPPOSITES & SIMILARITIES
> 
> Do any of these pairs/groups function as doubles (they might not)? 
If
> so, which kind? What function might this doubling have in the Grand
> Scheme of Things?
> 
names snipped.
> 
> Anyone else?
> 
Yes.  I want to suggest Dumbledore and Peeves as a fruitful pairing 
for analysis.  I believe Peeves presents a sort of disempowered evil 
Dumbledore.  His sense of humour is almost identical to D's, but mean 
and petty, where D's is generous, and frequently has a point to edify 
the target of it.  It's not as simple as saying that Peeves is the 
defeated Grindelwald - perhaps, rather, Peeves is Dumbledore's 
own 'dark self' after acknowledgement and exposure.  Not destroyed or 
imprisoned, but left to vent him/itself harmlessly.

Another pairing is Sirius with his own animagus form. (I find it hard 
to understand why this only works for me with him, and not with 
James, Peter, Miverva or Rita.  Certainly Prongs represents 
continuity not variability, as he is Harry's Patronus.)  It is in his 
name: Sirius Black.  Sirius is the brightest (and most twinkling in 
northern latitudes) star in the sky, so his name is a pairing of 
opposites: the dark star.  His ability to flip between man and dog 
comes across to me as an indication of a fundamental instability, the 
see-sawing between higher and lower, the base nature ever reaching up 
to trip up and shock the civilised man just when he thinks he has 
made it.

I have in a prior post suggested how Ginny and Harry form a pairing.  
It is hard to give Snape any 'literary partner' as there is an 
embaras de richesse - I would suggest Harry again, as indicated by 
their quizzical locking of gazes at the end of GOF - the beginning, 
perhaps, of a sort of mental priori incantatem effect for the next 
three books.  But perhaps we should not seek to give every major 
character a complement.

David




From buffyeton at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 30 08:05:23 2002
From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (EtonBuffy)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:05:23 -0000
Subject: Ginny's Name; Harry's Family
In-Reply-To: <F1948FZgNVWa60yGuOJ00004c58@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <aalj83+1661@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38316

reepicheepuk wrote:
> [Virginia] is probably the first name that comes to the average person's 
> mind. However, I feel that Guinevere (or even Gwynhwyvar) sounds a 
> lot more magic. After all, wizards keep swearing by Merlin, don't 
> they. And it would be a lot nicer and more mysterious, wouldn't it? 
> It will be interesting to hear more opinions on this one.

You must think about the other Weasley names though, they are not 
particularly "magical".  William, Charles, Percy, Fred(erick?), 
George, and Ronald sound more Royal actually than wizarding.



Someone said:
> >If Harry has no other family than the Dursleys, and it is quoted often
> >in the book that Mrs. Dursley pretends that she does not
> >even have a sister, how does she know that her sister is pregnant,
> >let alone the name of her son?

And the The Dark One replied:
> Maybe Lily sent her a baby-card or something like that when Harry 
> was born? Or...*thinks*...there were more cousins (like grandparents) and 
> they died in the meantime?

Cousins and Grandparents just happened to die in a year?  An entire 
family it seems?  Slightly odd....  It does make one wonder though, 
how much do former muggle wizards, like Lily and Hermione stay in 
touch with there muggle family?  Wizarding families from what I have 
read, have no contact with muggles in the family.  Such as Ron saying 
that his mom has a second cousin who is one, but they never talk to 
him.  

"EtonBuffy"




From Edblanning at aol.com  Tue Apr 30 11:28:32 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 07:28:32 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil 
Message-ID: <8e.27306830.29ffd9e0@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38317


> ARE GOOD AND EVIL BOUND CLOSELY TOGETHER 
> 
> 1. Characters
> In Post 23737, Pippin wrote, succinctly, "In Rowling's world we have 
> met no character who personifies the forces of good as thoroughly as 
> Voldemort personifies evil."
> 
> Voldemort personified evil, that is clear. We have never seen him, 
> in any of his incarnations, do anything that could be deemed 
> deliberately good or helpful (although an argument can be made that 
> he was inadvertently helpful to the students of Hogwarts back in the 
> 40s, when he managed to get Aragog out of the castle).
> 
> Have we, however, met no character who thoroughly personified the 
> forces of good?
> <snip>

> 2. Actions & Words
> On a smaller level, what determines whether an act is "good" 
> 

 <snip>

> How does someone's movitation affect whether an act is good or evil?
> <snip>

> 3. Themes in Literature
> One of the oldest themes in literature is the triumph of good over 
> evil. While the HP canon is still open, and at this juncture, it's 
> impossible to tell where good and evil stand on the continuum of 
> each character (other than perhaps Harry and Voldemort), what 
> factors do we, the readers, use to determine whether a character or 
> an action is evil or not? 

I'm not going to answer these questions individually, but they are the areas 
that I'm going to discuss.

Over Christmas, I was visited by my cousin and our elderly aunt (an 
ex-educationalist). The topic of conversation turned to the HP series which 
my aunt compared unfavourably to Tolkein and C.S. Lewis, on the grounds that 
the contrast between good an evil wasn't as clearly portrayed.

I didn't argue the point then, but it led me to consider whether this was a 
fair criticism, and indeed whether it is a good or a bad thing in children's 
literature for good and evil to be clearly characterised, or whether the 
ambiguity which we might find in HP is in fact a strength, being both more 
relevant to the real life situations that we find ourselves in and in leading 
children (and the rest of us) to think more deeply about these concepts. 

As some of you know, I have a bit of a problem with a dualistic view of 
absolute good and evil and wonder how relevant it is to the Harry Potter 
series, which seems to me to go beyond this simple characterisation of the 
choices to be made in life.

One of the indicators of this is, as Pippin has pointed out, that we have met 
no character that personifies undiluted good in the way that Voldemort 
represents undiluted evil. The nearest we seem to have to a personification 
of good, at least in the sense that he seems to be representative of the 
higher moral view, is Dumbledore, who himself is a highly ambiguous 
character, whose motivation is frequently unclear and whose actions sometimes 
seem questionable. 

It is tempting to draw analogies between Dumbledore as God and Voldemort as 
Satan: we could even argue that Dumbledore, as one of Tom Riddle's teachers 
(and one who knew his true nature) had a hand in creating Voldemort, as 
Christian mythology teaches that Satan is one of God's creatures. But for me, 
at least, the similarity between Dumbledore and God lies not in his goodness, 
but in his ambiguity. As I have said before, he seems perhaps to be a 
metaphor for the problem of evil. (This touches on things we have discussed 
at length in regard to Dumbledore's attitude to the Marauders and Snape's 
decision to join the DEs, and is not something I intend to expand on here.)

Another problem we face is the placing of good and evil within any kind of 
frame of reference within the Potterverse. Good and evil, right and wrong are 
moral absolutes, but in the Potterverse, what is their basis? There is no 
religious basis, as the Potterverse appears to be godless. If we have no 
religious basis for our values of good and evil, then we need a coherent 
philosophical basis and again, this, so far is missing.

How are these issues referred to within the books? I don't have time for an 
exhaustive search, as I'm really supposed to be writing an essay about 
something entirely different (but this is more interesting), so this is 
largely simply thinking out loud, from memory, which may be incomplete. Here 
are what I think are the relevant points.

First of all, we are presented with a conflict between two opposing ideals, a 
conflict in which Voldemort and Dumbledore are presented as the chief 
protagonists, so there is a dualism of some kind represented.

What we characterise as evil seems to be the province of what the Potterverse 
calls 'Dark Magic'. Exactly what this entails, we don't really know. It is 
implied that there are some forms of magic which are inherently 'Dark', but 
we have also discussed that Dark Magic probably also involves the use of 
spells which in other contexts may be innocent. In other words, motivation is 
an issue.

The series' emphasis on personal choice, on it being our choices and 
therefore our ensuing actions, that define us, suggests that the place to 
look for these moral values, however we term them, is in people's deeds.

This is perhaps confirmed by Dumbledore's speech at the end of GoF, where he 
further defines the choice as being between doing what is 'right' and doing 
what is 'easy'. Not 'good', but 'right'; not 'evil', but 'easy'. In other 
words, in a situation where there is a choice to be made, there is a 'right' 
choice and, by implication, that 'right' choice has nothing to do with what 
may be best for us in the short term, at least. However, as we all know, 
circumstances change, and what may be the right choice in one situation may 
be the wrong choice in another.

Interestingly, the only place that I can recall real emphasis being given to 
the words 'good' and 'evil', is at the end of PS/SS when Quirrell enunciates 
Voldemort's credo,
that there is no such thing as good and evil, but only power and those too 
weak to seek it.

I am now in the dangerous and rather unexpected position of being about to 
say that perhaps he is right, up to a point. The universe that many of us 
inhabit is relativistic. We recognise, as I pointed out above that actions 
which may be right in one situation may be wrong in another. All around us, 
every day, we see examples of this. Even issues that seem at first completely 
black and white become confused according to circumstance and personal belief.

Similarly, in the WW the AK is Unforgivable, yet under extreme circumstances 
the Aurors had permission to use it. The use of Cruciatus is Unforgivable - 
but imprisoning people in Azkaban where the mental torture of the Dementors 
send most mad is acceptable. 

And power? Well, that seems to be pretty important in the WW, doesn't it? The 
power and influence of people like Fudge, Crouch and Malfoy is what 
ostensibly makes the WW tick. But there is another type of power, power which 
is not self-seeking, which does not seek to dominate others and perhaps this 
is what Dumbledore personifies.

Power, and those too weak to use it....
I believe that much of the evil in the series will be perpetrated (or 
allowed) by those who are too weak to use their power for what is right. 
Fudge, for example. Will he choose what is right, or what is easy? (That's a 
rhetorical question BTW!)

Dumbledore, OTOH, has great power which, we assume, he will choose to use in 
the pursuit of right. He has eschewed the temptations of high office. 
Voldemort would no doubt castigate him as being weak for so doing, although 
from the 'Light' side, we can argue that Dumbledore is showing greater 
strength through not exploiting his power.

Which brings me back to where I came in, and to the argument I proposed back 
on Feb. 21 when we were discussing Snapetheories. (I'm sorry, I can't 
reference this as there seems to be some kind of malfunction which won't let 
me search the archive at the moment.) It seems to me that the dualism which 
the Potterverse is not so much between 'good' and 'evil' per se, but between 
a world view that recognises such moral values (that of what we tend to call 
the 'Light' side) and one which does not (that of the 'Dark' side). 'Good' 
and 'evil' are not absolutes to the 'Light' side; motivation and circumstance 
dictate whether a particular action is right or not. OTOH, 'good' and 'evil' 
are concepts which are simply irrelevant to the 'Dark' side. Power is 
something which to the 'Light' side is to be used wisely and for the general 
good; for the 'Dark' side, power is something to be exploited for personal 
gain.

This then allows for the 'greyness' of the 'light' wizards, it allows for 
moral ambiguity to creep in as they struggle to make the right decisions and 
sometimes make mistakes or do things which we can't understand. It means that 
our heroes *don't* have to be saints. It means that someone as nasty as 
Snape, whom we can in no way categorise as a conventionally 'good' man (not 
without the extensive use of apologetics, anyway), can fit into the role of 
'light wizard'.

It also accounts for the one-dimensional way in which the 'dark' wizards tend 
to be portrayed. There isn't much room for angsty decision making here. If 
you don't believe in morality, but only in self-promotion within a framework 
of obedience to a master who's creed is the domination of the weak, decision 
making is a whole lot easier.

Eloise




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 30 11:35:13 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:35:13 -0000
Subject: Good/Bad characters (Re: Ron's chess ability)
In-Reply-To: <14631843757.20020429232405@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <aalvhh+1bib@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38318

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> I wouldn't enjoy the books nearly as much, if everyone
> were 100% good or bad, and the "heros" always did and said
> the right things at the right time <g>.
 
This brings up something I've been thinking about lately concerning 
the characters in the book.  While JKR gives us "good" characters 
that are well-rounded (not perfect, sometimes mess up or break the 
rules) the "bad" characters do tend to be a bit one-dimensional.  
Every "good" character has his/her good and bad points: Harry, Ron 
and Hermione are of course brave, each with their talents they bring 
to fighting dark wizards and they're also basically nice people.  
They also break rules regularly and each of them has obsessed over 
someone chiefly based on looks (Cho/Fleur/Lockhart).  Neville is a 
sweet boy with a tragic past.  Dean and Seamus seem like basically 
nice boys.  Lavender is kind of a question mark, but harmless (her 
flaw, like Parvati's, seems to be idolizing Trelawney); Parvati and 
her sister seem all right most of the time and who can really blame 
them for wanting to be with boys that were noticing their existence 
at the Yule Ball?

The adults are the same--well-rounded yet imperfect could also 
describe Mr. & Mrs. Weasley, McGonagall, Dumbledore and even Snape.  
We know for certain he's good after the fourth book, with Dumbledore 
vouching for him in the Pensieve and being given what sounds like a 
fairly dangerous mission.  In the first book he saved Harry's life 
during the Quidditch match and in the third book he genuinely 
believed he was going to catch a dangerous murderer and the werewolf 
who was abetting him.  Sirius and Remus both, of course, are good 
and yet also with their flaws.

In contrast to all of this, the following people could not,in their 
behavior or motivation in canon, be termed anything but "bad," and 
while the "good" people occasionally do "bad" things, these "bad" 
people NEVER do "good" things:

The Dursleys (all three)
Lucius Malfoy
Draco Malfoy & sidekicks (including Pansy)
Tom Riddle/Voldemort
Karkaroff
Trelawney

I included Trelawney in there after much thought; I really could not 
think of a single time she did/said anything nice or constructive, 
and in general her role seems to be to discourage Harry even more 
than Snape (who is known to be good) does through her doom-and-gloom 
predictions.  Although we are learning more about Riddle/Voldemort 
and his history, even though one might want to be sympathetic about 
his being an orphan we are not treated to any good act he has ever 
performed.  (When his "memory" was sympathetically "listening" to 
Ginny in CoS, it was with ulterior motives and he actually found it 
tedious.)  And the Dursleys, Malfoys et al have yet to do anything 
remotely sympathetic or nice.

Five "bad" people who were masquerading as "good" people did things 
that were sometimes not so bad until their true nature was revealed:

Quirrell
Pettigrew
Crouch, Sr.
Crouch, Jr.
Bagman

Thus their pre-unmasked "goodness" doesn't really count toward 
making them well-rounded characters, since it was for the sake of 
public appearance and they had ulterior motives for it.  (It may 
have seemed that Crouch, Jr. was being kind to Neville, for 
instance, but it was with the intention of getting Harry to win the 
tournament and to eventually deliver him to Voldemort, so that 
hardly counts.)

Thoughts?  Can anyone think of a "bad" person who has actually done 
something good without an ulterior motive?  I admit I am still 
unsure where to slot Fudge--he seems full of ulterior motives, 
frankly, and I'm not convinced one nice thing he did for or said to 
Harry in PoA was genuine.  He certainly doesn't seem like he will be 
part of the solution (as opposed to part of the problem) at the end 
of GoF.

While it is good that JKR makes the "good" characters well-rounded, 
in a way it would be even more satisfying if she were to do the same 
thing with the "bad" characters.

(I apologize if this treads into the territory of the current Nel 
question, which I haven't had the chance to read yet.)

Any thoughts, folks?  Opposing points of view welcome...

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Tue Apr 30 12:46:54 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:46:54 -0000
Subject: Good/Bad characters
In-Reply-To: <aalvhh+1bib@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aam3nu+8klc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38319

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> In contrast to all of this [good characters with bad bits], the 
following people could not,in their 
> behavior or motivation in canon, be termed anything but "bad," and 
> while the "good" people occasionally do "bad" things, these "bad" 
> people NEVER do "good" things:
> 
> The Dursleys (all three)
> Lucius Malfoy
> Draco Malfoy & sidekicks (including Pansy)
> Tom Riddle/Voldemort
> Karkaroff
> Trelawney

I would add Lockhart and Skeeter.  However, I think there is a fair 
chance that at least some of the Dursleys may show signs of good bits 
in due course.  And we have just thrashed out ad nauseam whether 
Draco's actions have ulterior good motives without reaching a 
consensus.

> Five "bad" people who were masquerading as "good" people did things 
> that were sometimes not so bad until their true nature was revealed:
> 
> Quirrell
> Pettigrew
> Crouch, Sr.
> Crouch, Jr.
> Bagman

Now here we have a clear exception.  Crouch Sr. tries to reach 
Dumbledore and admits he has been very foolish.

> Thoughts?  Can anyone think of a "bad" person who has actually done 
> something good without an ulterior motive?

I would say that classically it is the case that when previously bad 
people do good things, it is always possible to identify an ulterior 
motive.  Indeed, while I have never been out-and-out evil, I would 
say that when I have done something good I have been painfully aware 
of the benefits that will accrue to me through doing so and wondered 
if I would still do it if they were not there.  So, for example, 
Crouch Sr probably has self-preservation in mind, guessing that his 
son and Voldemort intend to kill him once their plot is complete.  I 
don't think one can ever know.

> While it is good that JKR makes the "good" characters well-rounded, 
> in a way it would be even more satisfying if she were to do the 
same 
> thing with the "bad" characters.

I believe they can be rounded without the need to identify 'good' 
actions.  Fudge is a case in point: the very fact that he is hard to 
slot suggests he has depth (though I accept JKR could make him 
shallower by giving him a self-motivated backstory for POA).  Sirius 
and Snape are 'rounded' not only because they mix black, white and 
grey, but also because they are complex.  Conversely, I think our 
collective difficulty to decide about Draco stems from the fact that 
we need not redemption but depth in his portrayal.  In his case we 
have not ambiguity but a blank canvas which we can choose to fill 
with our own, possibly subversive, interpretations.

David




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Tue Apr 30 12:50:20 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:50:20 -0000
Subject: Harry's Family
In-Reply-To: <aak7f7+9oq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aam3uc+o19m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38320

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "EtonBuffy" <buffyeton at y...> wrote:
> I was just re-reading Sorcerer's Stone and a question popped into my 
> head.  If Harry has no other family than the Dursleys, and it is 
> quoted often in the book that Mrs. Dursley pretends that she does not 
> even have a sister, how does she know that her sister is pregnant, 
> let alone the name of her son?

I'd imagine that, even though she doesn't speak of Lily, she has 
compared to her all her life: how Lily was always the best in 
everything, etc. She's now desperate to know that she's leading a 
better life. In fact, this seems to have rubbed on Mr. Weasley, too 
(remeber his thoughts at the beggining of PS: they were classy, the 
Potters were not). It would only stand to reason that, even if Mrs. 
Weasley despises her sister, she maintains contact to see if she can 
show off, to asure that she's leading a better life and to know what 
they are doing (remember, she's the sort of woman who cannot allow 
secrets to be kept from her: she spies her neighbours, listens to 
rumours, etc.). Then again, most baby's are Christianed, and family is 
supposed to attend, even if you're not in speacking terms (this would 
apply to weddings, too, so I'd imqagine that even if the Dursleys don't 
come up in the photos of the Lily-James wedding, it's because they left 
as soon as it was convinient - or where already stuffing themselves).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Tue Apr 30 13:13:27 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:13:27 -0000
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again/SPEW
In-Reply-To: <88.1786e6c1.29ff106a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aam59n+8lj3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38321

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ahketsi at a... wrote:
> Just a comment here on SPEW. I mentioned this before but I don't 
> think anyone noticed. Why would Hermione, who is obviuosly very 
> intelligent, create a name for her cause that has the acronym SPEW? 
> This funny name obviously reduces the credibility of her cause.  
> Hermione may not think the same as her peers,but even she could see 
> this. It was a ridiculous mistake on her part, one that I cannot see
> her making. What do you all think?
> 
> -Ahketsi

Well, for starters, creating acronyms is hard work, take it from me 
(unless you're called Tabouli, that is). 

Then again, Hermione was just too impulsive, and she was thinking of 
higher ideals than the more prosaic side of any sort of campaign: 
publicity, mottos, mass appeal, etc. (you know, all those things 
politicians waste -sorry, "invest"- millions on). Hermione expected 
people to hear that "elves must be liberated" and be inmediately 
convinced of it, just as she was. It's a common syndrom of intelligent, 
optimistic people (I am fairly intelligent, even if I do say so myself, 
but being hopelessly pesimistic, I would never have even *started* the 
campaign).

Another point of view is that it's just a form of comic relief, but it 
was far too serious for that.

On the other hand, I vaguely recall that JKR is a fan of some sort of 
American revolutionary woman called... Jessica? If someone knows about 
it, maybe he/she could investigate the first steps of that woman, to 
see if they relate to the SPEW campaign.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From kerelsen at quik.com  Tue Apr 30 15:46:31 2002
From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:46:31 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Family
References: <aam3uc+o19m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008501c1f05e$343a1ba0$ba21b0d8@kerelsen>

No: HPFGUIDX 38322


----- Original Message -----
From: "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at jazzfree.com>
>
> I'd imagine that, even though she doesn't speak of Lily, she
has
> compared to her all her life: how Lily was always the best in
> everything, etc. She's now desperate to know that she's leading
a
> better life. In fact, this seems to have rubbed on Mr. Weasley,

I assume you meant to type Dursley here? :)

>too
> (remeber his thoughts at the beggining of PS: they were classy,
the
> Potters were not). It would only stand to reason that, even if
Mrs.
> Weasley despises her sister, she maintains contact to see if
she can
> show off, to asure that she's leading a better life and to know
what
> they are doing (remember, she's the sort of woman who cannot
allow
> secrets to be kept from her: she spies her neighbours, listens
to
> rumours, etc.). Then again, most baby's are Christianed, and
family is
> supposed to attend, even if you're not in speacking terms (this
would
> apply to weddings, too, so I'd imqagine that even if the
Dursleys don't
> come up in the photos of the Lily-James wedding, it's because
they left
> as soon as it was convinient - or where already stuffing
themselves).

Well, if Lily and Petunia's mum was anything like mine, it was
"You will be at your sister's wedding and put a good face on it
or else!"

I like your thoughts about how Petunia probably did keep up on
what her sibling did, even if only to point out to herself how
abnormal and freakish that Lily was.  The comparisons that
Petunia makes between her life and the "freaks" of the Wizarding
World, sadly, just points out how maladapted SHE is... being
unable to let go of grudges, and being prejudicial and
maintaining a hatred even after the object of that hatred was
gone.  I'm sure a pychoanalyst would have a field day with
Petunia and her transferences and repressions and such...  Her
emotions toward anything Wizarding are so out of balance with the
real differences between Muggle and Magic, that even after Harry
finally does leave home, she'll probaby stew and grouse and
mutter about Lily and the WW for the rest of her life.

I admit that I do wonder why Vernon is even more anti-Magic in
attitude than Petunia though... we get that incredibly
vituperative speech about Lily being a "freak" from her when
Hagrid comes to get Harry, but Vernon is the one who really goes
overboard in the ranting against the WW... Just WHY is he so
afraid of it?  Beyond the "normal" fear of the unknown?  Could
the Marauders have pulled a magical prank on him?  Who knows...
but it's fun to speculate!

Bernadette

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).




From Edblanning at aol.com  Tue Apr 30 16:00:05 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (edblanning)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:00:05 -0000
Subject: Wizarding World law/ Fourth Man
In-Reply-To: <aak7a2+la87@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aamf25+n979@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38323

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> Eloise wrote:
> 
> > Bagman has also already apparently been found guilty and has 
> returned for 
> > sentencing.
> 
> Oh my.  I think Bagman *wasn't* convicted at all.  Crouch Sr. says 
> that "We have heard the evidence against you, and are about to 
reach 
> our verdict.  Do you have anything to add to your testimony before 
we 
> pronounce judgment?"
> 
> So even though I am thoroughly, 100% convinced that Bagman Is Ever 
So 
> Evil and is a Total Secret DE through and through, he did manage 
not 
> to be convicted, I think.

Eloise:
Oops! How embarassing! Do you realise you've just put in some canon, 
there Cindy? ;-)
Yeah. That bit's really confusing isn't it? I think she meant to 
write 'pass sentence' instead of 'pronounce judgment'. Crouch *does* 
say that Bagman's been caught passing information, which seems to 
indicate his guilt's not in doubt, but seems to be unsure as to 
whether to apply a prison sentence. It's a very odd state of affairs. 
> 
> > The same also perhaps applies to the four accused in the 
Longbottom 
> affair. 
<snip>

Cindy: 
> Yes, I think JKR is being way imprecise here.  It drives me to 
> distraction every time I read it.  I mean, he keeps saying the four 
> people "stand accused", and then he asks the jury to raise their 
> hands and pass judgment.  Only one potential sentence is offered 
up: 
> a life sentence in Azkaban.  There's no examination of whether one 
> defendant is more culpable than the others.  I have never been able 
> to make sense of that scene.  I actually find it rather FLINT-y.

Eloise:

The whole scene's FLINT-y , if you ask me. JKR obviously didn't grow 
up watching episodes of 'Crown Court' like I did!

Cindy:
> Maybe the delay in the release in OoP is being used to get these 
> legal details correct this time around?  :-)  Nah, probably not.  
> There probably won't be any legal proceedings in OoP.  Wizards will 
> just blast each other on sight.

Eloise:
Won't make much difference,will it? ;-)

Cindy:
> Well, despite making me gnash my teeth now and then, I guess we 
could 
> evaluate the extent to which the WW gets it right when it comes to 
> imposing sentence.  Let's see how the wizards are doing with 
sending 
> the guilty to jail and acquitting the innocent:

<snip roll-call>

> So maybe wizarding justice is correct about half the time?  Not too 
> impressive, I guess, although wizards do seem to have found a way 
not 
> to convict the innocent, unless the innocent have been properly 
> framed.  ;-)

Eloise:
<innocently>
Framed? who ever suggested anyone had been framed? ;-)
> 
> ............................................
>  
> 
> Eloise (about Tough Guy Avery):
>  
> > But is he really being Tough, Tough in a DE sense? Sure, we can 
> make him out 
> > to be noble and self-sacrificing in the graveyard. But *are* 
Tough 
> DEs noble 
> > and self-sacrificing? I tend to think not. The most noble and 
> > self-sacrificing thing we've seen a DE do so far is Wormtail 
> cutting off his 
> > hand and not everyone thinks even *that's* Tough. 

Cindy: 
> Well, we don't have a lot to go on here.  But we have some small, 
> puny canons, so I say we make the most out of them, shall we?
> 
> Wormtail has, on two occasions, taken one for the team.  But I'm 
not 
> sure those occasions count.  The first (cutting off his finger) was 
> pure self-preservation.  The second (cutting off his hand) was done 
> out of duress, I suppose.
> 
> Now Mrs. Lestrange, maybe she is noble and self-sacrificing.  Maybe 
> the whole idea was for her to stand up in the Pensieve scene and 
take 
> a bullet for the other three DEs.  She was trying to save poor 
young 
> Crouch, who was going to pieces there.  And perhaps (if you believe 
> Avery is Fourth Man) it worked in the end, because it may have 
> allowed Avery to point the finger at Mrs. Lestrange so that the 
> Number Two DE, who is by definition more important than the other 
> DEs, was able to walk free.

Eloise:
Well perhaps that Mrs Lestrange *is* noble and self-sacrificing. 
However, I'm not sure that she was doing it for the sake of the other 
three. If she sacrificing herself, I feel it's as a martyr, rather 
than as anything else. I think she's a fanatic, plain and simple, 
with a belief that either her Master will return and rescue her or 
else that she will die loyal to him (hey, with all this talk a while 
back of DEs possibly sharing, or believing they're sharing in some 
kind of eternal life with Voldemort, perhaps she actually believes 
that she'll be rewarded in some kind of Voldemort heaven). 
Unfortunately we have plenty of real life parallels for a fanatical 
Mrs Lestrange.

And I bet those Dementors are terrified of her! If Sirius can keep 
his sanity through belief in his own innocence, her fanatacism ought 
to keep her going.I don't envisage her emerging from Azkaban a shadow 
of her former self.
 
> BTW, did we ever agree that Crouch Jr. is a SYCOPHANT?  I can't 
> remember, although he sure sounds like one.  I mean, does being a 
> SYCOPHANT preclude a character from being Tough or competent?  I 
kind 
> of get that feeling (because our chief SYCOPHANTS are often 
portrayed 
> as weak and ineffectual.)

Eloise:
I'm not very good on sycophants. I majored in hedgehogs (and am going 
no further ;-).
Crouch Jr is another fanatic. Probably with a *massive* crush on Mrs 
Lestrange. That's why he hates the DEs who haven't gone to Azkaban so 
much.

Cindy:
 
> But I digress.  So what is the yard-stick by which success as a DE 
is 
> measured?  Voldemort seems to think it is loyalty. 

Eloise:
My point entirely

Cindy:
 But I'm not 
> sure.  To the extent Voldemort has gotten hacked off at his DEs, it 
> is incompetence that sets him off, maybe even more than simple lack 
> of loyalty.  After all, all of the DEs in the graveyard were 
disloyal 
> and left Voldemort to drift along as a vapor for 13 years or so.  
> Didn't bother them one bit.  But Voldemort doesn't torture them, 
one 
> by one.  No, he tortures Avery (as head DE?).  The other torture of 
a 
> DE we see is Wormtail, who is tortured for incompetence (letting 
> Crouch Sr. escape). 

Eloise:
I don't know.....It was their disloyalty he lectured them about.I 
wonder if it was actually the weakness that Avery displayed that 
earned him the Cruciatus. You know, the way a dog (or a child, for 
that matter, says she, with feeling) senses weakness and can't help 
attacking. Lucius sort of stands up to Voldemort. He's respectful, 
but he doesn't grovel. I don't think DEs are supposed to grovel. It's 
undignified and I think Voldemort's reaction was to that. Wormtail 
just sort of asks for it, really, doesn't he? Just by his presence? 
The implication is that Crabbe and Goyle are incompetent, but I have 
the impression Voldemort's a bit resigned to that!

Cindy:
> Voldemort should focus more on the incompetence angle, if you ask 
> me.  The threat of a few Cruciatus curses might go a long way 
toward 
> sharpening the aim of the DEs when they are trying to gun down a 
> fleeing, injured boy.

Eloise: 
That was pretty pathetic, wasn't it? But to be fair to the DEs, I 
think Harry was having some help from the shades, wasn't he?

<on Avery again>
> >If he's all that cunning, isn't he going to let someone else 
> > get the rap? Are his fellow DEs really going to respect him as No 
1 
> >Henchman 
> > because he allows Voldemort to punish him? The reverse, I'd have 
> thought.

Cindy: 
> Ah, but there is that Life Debt thing.  Avery saved the DEs a dance 
> with the Cruciatus Curse.  Maybe he figures they owe him now?

Eloise:
But it's not actually a life-debt. I see what you're saying, but 
since when did DEs play fair? Are you suggesting that they have their 
own code of chivalry, that we've not seen yet. I suppose they could, 
but it seems a bit, well... noble...and I have a problem with noble 
DEs. Well, I might not have, now I come to think about it, if I ever 
came across one. There's something quite attractive about noble 
villains, isn't there? What's that you say? Avery? Nah...nothing 
doing there. (Hey..anyone ever see that series years back with the 
young Anthony Valentine as a really gorgeous Nazi officer?  Sorry, I 
digress.)

Eloise: 
>  > Surely the point about being a DE is that you're loyal to 
> Voldemort, beyond 
> > anything or anyone else. If he's Strong and Tough and Committed, 
> (as I 
> > unfortunately snipped), why doesn't he endure Azkaban, like the 
> Lestranges, 
> > or having got himself out by a cowardly cry of Imperius, why 
hasn't 
> *he* done 
> > something about trying to rescue Voldemort?

Cindy:  
> Now, where did this idea come from that invoking the Imperius Curse 
> as a sham defense is cowardly?  If you are already Evil To The 
Core, 
> why would you draw a line in the sand and say, "Oh, I'll torture 
> muggles and kill people for sport, but *no way* will I *ever* claim 
> Imperius.  That's just *wrong*."  I figure these wily DEs will say 
> and do anything to stay out of Azkaban, because they are no good to 
> anyone wasting away in prison.

Eloise:
Well, it was all my own idea, actually <sniff> 
I guess what I mean is, that if you are Tough and committed and 
believe in your cause, you stand up for it, don't you? Not that I 
would go to Azkaban, if I could possibly help it. I am fully aware 
that I am *not* martyr material. 
It's perfectly true that they are no good wasting away in prison, but 
they haven't done their cause any good having got off, either, have 
they? Which just goes to show that they're not committed to Voldemort 
anyway.
 
Cindy: 
> Except Mrs. Lestrange.  She didn't get the memo about claiming 
> Imperius and slipping off the hook.  That Mrs. Lestrange is a real 
> wildcat.

Eloise:
Exactly. Now, if *she'd* got off on Imperius, you can bet your bottom 
dollar Voldemort would have been back years ago!

Cindy:
> 
> Eloise:
> 
> > Nah. In Over His Head Fourth Man works much better for me. In 
Over 
> the Top 
> > Fourth Man might just be Noble and Self Sacrificing; he's reading 
> the wrong 
> > script. He has a certain amount of pathos as well, which I quite 
> like.
> 
> Oooh, are you proposing a new Fourth Man variant -- "Over The Top 
> Fourth Man?"  Is he especially melodramatic, a bit of a Drama Queen 
> or something?  Do tell, Eloise!

Eloise:
Sorry, Cindy. Over The Top Fourth Man is merely a typing error!
But , you know...well he *could* be a bit of a drama queen, couldn't 
he, all that grovelling and stuff. Perhaps we could lend him a 
featherboa, dress him up a bit, find him a role in panto.......

> Cindy (trembling all over at the idea that there might be yet 
another 
> Fourth Man variant)

Eloise:
Masochistic Fourth Man? (Or have we had him before? I can't remember 
all the variations.)I think you've provided canon for that. ;-)

Eloise
(who did that Enneagram thing for fun the other day and coming out as 
a Type 1, is seriously beginning to wonder whether that's a healthy 
type 1, or not.)





From gwendolyngrace at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 30 16:01:35 2002
From: gwendolyngrace at yahoo.com (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:01:35 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil
In-Reply-To: <8e.27306830.29ffd9e0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <aamf4v+29n4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38324

Greetings, all!

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:

> The series' emphasis on personal choice, on it being our choices and
> therefore our ensuing actions, that define us, suggests that the
place to
> look for these moral values, however we term them, is in people's deeds.
>
(Snip some excellent examples)
>
> Which brings me back to where I came in, and to the argument I
proposed back
> on Feb. 21 when we were discussing Snapetheories. It seems to me
that the dualism which
> the Potterverse is not so much between 'good' and 'evil' per se, but
between
> a world view that recognises such moral values (that of what we tend
to call
> the 'Light' side) and one which does not (that of the 'Dark' side).
'Good'
> and 'evil' are not absolutes to the 'Light' side; motivation and
circumstance
> dictate whether a particular action is right or not. OTOH, 'good'
and 'evil'
> are concepts which are simply irrelevant to the 'Dark' side. Power is
> something which to the 'Light' side is to be used wisely and for the
general
> good; for the 'Dark' side, power is something to be exploited for
personal
> gain.
>
> This then allows for the 'greyness' of the 'light' wizards, it
allows for
> moral ambiguity to creep in as they struggle to make the right
decisions and
> sometimes make mistakes or do things which we can't understand. It
means that
> our heroes *don't* have to be saints. It means that someone as nasty as
> Snape, whom we can in no way categorise as a conventionally 'good'
man (not
> without the extensive use of apologetics, anyway), can fit into the
role of
> 'light wizard'.
>
> It also accounts for the one-dimensional way in which the 'dark'
wizards tend
> to be portrayed. There isn't much room for angsty decision making
here. If
> you don't believe in morality, but only in self-promotion within a
framework
> of obedience to a master who's creed is the domination of the weak,
decision
> making is a whole lot easier.


Excellent points, Eloise!

Your post made me think of several aspect of the musical, "Into the
Woods," where the central theme is also about choices and
interpretation of others' actions.

For those not familiar with the play, it follows well-known fairy tale
characters through their stories, interweaving them together by means
of a baker and his wife and their quest. The first act tells the tales
as we know them, more or less: Red Riding Hood, Jack and the
Beanstalk, Cinderella, and Rapunzel each have their trials and come
out "happy ever after." But in the second act, the actions of their
fairy tales bring about consequences none of them foresaw, and all the
characters must live through the implications. The four main
characters--Cinderella, Jack, Red, and the baker--come to the
conclusion that interpretation and decision are the most important
aspects of responsibility.

The overall message of the show is that appearances are deceiving,
actions have consequences, and a responsible person weighs those
consequences and then commits to a choice, hoping for the best. But is
also reminds us that paths can change.

As Eloise writes about the innate morality of a character lying in
intention, rather than action alone, I keep thinking how these themes
all tie in together. We've also discussed intention as a force behind
magic. How elegant and fitting if intention is also the force that
underpins morality and righteousness, as opposed to the polarity of
good and evil.

It also ties in to what I said in response to last week's question,
about how as HRH grow, they realize that they are part of a larger
world than they know, and that their decisions on a going forward
basis will impact circles outside of circles, and it is up to them to
decide how they will fit in that world.

So now we have intention as it pertains to the effect of magic;
intention as it pertains to the analysis of character and how that
informs the character's morality; intention as it affects the
decisions of characters who are exporing their place within a world of
fuzzy lines and incomplete motivations; and intention as the litmus
test of whether a character is ultimately on the side or right or wrong.

What I also like about Eloise's interpretation is that it tidily bags
up those characters who are convinced they are right, as well. For
example, suppose there is a Death Eater who is so utterly deluded that
their cause is right, proper, and just, that he will do anything to
advance it? I'm talking the kind of rapturous fanaticism that
accompanies the most ardent of martyrs. He believes with his whole
heart that what he does--killing that Muggle, torturing that
witch--will ultimately prove the righteousness of his actions. Thus,
he, too, does not stop to consider. He does not second-guess. He does
not doubt. And isn't that just as wrong as the one who simply doesn't
care about morality at all?

It would be an interesting corollary to posit whether one's intention
is also measured against one's self-doubt. I'm not talking about lack
of self-esteem, but one's tendency to wonder, "What if I'd done that
differently?" For example, Lupin's actions are not simply judged by
his *intention* to protect Harry while also protecting himself. They
must also be judged by his admission later that he felt uneasy, that
he *worried* about whether he was handling things properly over the
course of the year. The catch here is that in many of these
situations, it is only in retrospect that we can judge one's level of
doubt over a particular decision. Nevertheless, it seems to go
hand-in-hand with the intention to do right.

And of course, some decisions are easier to make than others. But
doesn't it follow that if on the one hand, the side of dark wizards do
not waste time caring about moral implications, they also rarely look
back at their actions with remorse?

How long or deeply did Dumbledore deliberate before allowing Harry to
face Voldemort in book 1? To what extent does Snape regret his
association with the Death Eaters? What really sets Harry apart from
Voldemort: his intent to be helpful and good, or his *worry* that he
may not be as good as he intends, or both combined?

It's unlikely that we'll ever really see many of these intention:doubt
ratios in action in the books, but I think that the two concepts are
clearly linked. One who goes through angsty debate about what to do
will nearly always also wonder whether the final decision was the
right one.

Gwen




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Apr 30 16:13:16 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:13:16 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's chess ability
References: <aa.ac4be96.29fefa3c@aol.com> <009f01c1eff3$91c85040$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> <14631843757.20020429232405@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <00e101c1f061$efc8e920$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 38325


Susanne:
>Um, so Harry, who went totally emotional in that same scene,
>attacking Sirius, is also Bad News?
>He's been known to "explode" in other emotional situations,
>too.
>And Hermione, who freezes up when things get dangerous, at
>least sometimes.

Nope.  Harry and Hermione just don't make me a nervous as Ron does.  Even when Harry "explodes" -- he has remarkable self-control.  I mean, remember the things that Aunt Marge was saying to him at the beginning of PoA?  Eventually, yes, he does snap -- but until then...*I* was impressed by his self-control.  The woman had been awful to him for days -- she got what she deserved, in my opinion.  And even when he snapped -- he didn't just stand there and yell at Marge and the Dursleys -- no, he got his stuff and got OUT. 

And in GoF, when Snape is horrible to Hermione and Harry is thinking of using Crucio on him -- Harry's anger here is almost frightening.  However, it is very controlled.  Even in PoA when preparing to kill Sirius -- he is furious, but still very under control.  The kid has got self-restraint.

However, yes, I do think his anger -- while it does not make him as vulnerable as Ron -- will get him into trouble at some point.  For awhile, I think, he'll end up getting so caught up in the desire to "get back" at Voldemort, that he'll lose his own humanity for awhile, and someone will be hurt because of it.

>But I'm also one of the people who see Hermione as not 100%
>perfect ;)
>In my opinion she *is* sometimes bossy, and can be a little
>callous (not sure if this word is a bit too strong, English
>is not my first language).

Oh, I know she's not perfect.  I was joking a bit there.  Yes, she can be pretty bossy -- but we all are, at times, aren't we?

>I wouldn't enjoy the books nearly as much, if everyone
>were 100% good or bad, and the "heroes" always did and said
>the right things at the right time <g>.

And I agree totally with you here.  Absolutely.  I know that none of the Trio are perfect and, honestly, I wouldn't have it any other way ^_^.

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Apr 30 16:21:24 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:21:24 -0000
Subject: House-Elfs and Slavery Again/SPEW
In-Reply-To: <aam59n+8lj3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aamga4+mhi9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38326


Ahketsi at a... wrote:
> Why would Hermione, who is obviuosly very 
> > intelligent, create a name for her cause that has the acronym 
SPEW?  This funny name obviously reduces the credibility of her 
cause.  Hermione may not think the same as her peers,but even 
she could see  this. It was a ridiculous mistake on her part, one 
that I cannot see her making. What do you all think?<<<

Grey Wolf:
 Hermione was just too impulsive, and she was thinking of 
> higher ideals than the more prosaic side of any sort of 
campaign:  publicity, mottos, mass appeal, etc. (you know, all 
those things  politicians waste -sorry, "invest"- millions on). 
<snip>
> Another point of view is that it's just a form of comic relief, but it 
> was far too serious for that.
> 

Even experienced publicists can make silly mistakes. The 
Chevrolet people had a hard time understanding why the Chevy 
Nova wasn't selling in Mexico, until somebody pointed out that 
"no va" means "won't go" in Spanish.  

Just because Hermione is brilliant doesn't mean she can't make 
an obvious mistake, and then make it worse by refusing to 
acknowledge it.

I think JKR does exaggerate Hermione's obtuseness a bit here 
for the sake of the joke (not only does she not understand Elf 
culture, she doesn't understand her own), but also because the 
absurdity of the name had to be obvious enough for Ron and 
Harry to spot immediately.  If the joke was subtle, it would be out 
of character for them to get it. The silly name also telegraphs the 
reader that Hermione's campaign is ill-advised. We are to 
understand at the outset that Hermione means well, but her 
efforts are going to be hindered by her blinkered outlook.
 


> On the other hand, I vaguely recall that JKR is a fan of some 
sort of  American revolutionary woman called... Jessica? If 
someone knows about  it, maybe he/she could investigate the 
first steps of that woman, to  see if they relate to the SPEW 
campaign.

Jessica Mitford...but JKR says in an interview that Hermione's 
misadventures in social action are based on things she herself  
and her sister undertook as teens. 

http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_rowlingcomplete.html


Pippin





From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Apr 30 17:36:59 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:36:59 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
In-Reply-To: <aajqjk+hbq4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aamknr+8ov7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38327

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> This week's question from the Phil Nel database...
> 
>  Why has Rowling drawn connections between Voldemort and Harry?  

The connections are the *story.* Without them the plot would be
reduced to a final AK match. 

>In
> linking these characters so closely, is she suggesting some kinship
> between opposites?  Are good and evil bound closely together?  

In my world view, it is.  So far, only the bad guy says "there is no
right or wrong, but only power..."  However, the good guy seems to say 
the real choice is between right and easy.  One sees no evil, only weaknes; the
other sees second best as bad.

>Can 
> you think of other characters in the series who, though they appear 
> to be opposites, are in fact more alike than we initially suspect?
> 
The Ron-Draco pairing has been mentioned by others. Both seem
overly impulsive throw minor curses at each other.
> 
> The connection between Harry and Voldemort is distinctly drawn in 
> CoS, when Tom Riddle points out the similarities:
> 
> snip<
> What does Tom think these similarities mean?  

They are simply a way to taunt, or, perhaps recruit Harry; or at
least to weaken him with doubts.

> What does Harry think
> they mean?  

Harry suspects they point to some weakness in himself.

>What does Dumbledore think they mean? 

Especially at the end of GoF, he sees a shot at defeating Voldemort.

>What do YOU think
> they, and other connections that have been discussed in the books' 
> subtext, mean? 

As one who doubts the value of too much subtext gazing, I see the
author's intent to enrich the plot with interesting twists.
> 
> *******************************************************************
> KINSHIP BETWEEN OPPOSITES
>snip<
> The Mirror Image

I frankly don't see *total* mirror images between pairs of 
characters in HP.
> 
<snip> (Strangely enough, twins don't
> count as doubles.)

Understandable, I think. Twins' characteristics tend to resemble
eachother,  not reflect.  Twins are not mirror images of each other.
> 
> The Secret Sharer
> Named after the Joseph Conrad story by the same name, the
protagonist
> recognizes a part of himself in the double and therefore feels he
has
> a secret kinship with his double.

Yes, Harry sees the influence of Gryffindor as well as Slytherin, in
his make-up.
> 
> The Antithetical Self
> Often the most obvious kind of double, this double stands in an
> antagonistic relationship with the hero but nevertheless is very
much
> like the hero, as if they were opposite sides of the same coin.
(Post
> 38132 addresses the Harry/Voldemort connection rather well.)

Yes, we may view the story as revolving around these connections.

> Fragmentation of the Mind

Animagi? However, the animagi characters tend to behave the same way
in either of their forms, with the exeption of Lupin, who is
something of a special case.

> Ambivalence
> snip <

So, does Harry's several father figures "connect' them in some way?
In Harry's mind, I don't think they do.


> ARE GOOD AND EVIL BOUND CLOSELY TOGETHER 
> 
> 1. Characters
> In Post 23737, Pippin wrote, succinctly, "In Rowling's world we
have 
> met no character who personifies the forces of good as thoroughly
as 
> Voldemort personifies evil."
> 
The good guys contrast what is right vs. what is easy.  The bad guys contrast 
power vs. weakness.  I think Voldemort admits to weakness when he
speaks of his dispair in the forest.  Voldemort can't do anything good
because he has  no concept of it, like the good guys have a concept of evil.
> 
> 2. Actions & Words
> On a smaller level, what determines whether an act is "good" 
> or "evil"? <snip examples>

Motivation is pretty much the key in the Potterverse.  Despite the 
presence of the MoM, the WW seems to me pretty much of an anarchy.
Good intentions is good, if a concensus sees good results.

> 3. Themes in Literature
> One of the oldest themes in literature is the triumph of good over 
> evil. 

It's the case for HP, IMHO.

>What would the Diggorys say about that decision at 
> the end of Book 4? 

They, being good, would see the decision as good. Hidsight doesn't
count.
> 
> OPPOSITES & SIMILARITIES
> 
> Do any of these pairs/groups function as doubles (they might not)?
If
> so, which kind? What function might this doubling have in the Grand
> Scheme of Things?
> 
> Harry and James

James manages to do a great deal of posthumous parenting.  I think
Harry's IMAGE of his father is more a double than the real James would have
been.

> Harry and Lockhart

On my first reading of CS, I actually thought Lockhart was going to
be a Voldemort agent set to seduce Harry with prospcts of fame.

> Harry, Ron, Hermione

A trio of doubles? Hmm... Yes, they are a sort of three-walled squash
court,  aren't they?  A plce where ideas can get batted around.

> Dumbledore and Voldemort

Pretty plainly opposites or nearly so.  It almost seems the real
fight is between V and D.

> Sirius, James, Peter, Remus (aka The Marauders) and their animal 
> selves)

Another fragmentation, IMHO, a way to contrast people with how they
turn out.

> Harry and Draco

To be fair, we don't see enough of Draco to contrast him with Harry. 
In the polyjuice scene, he seems much more human.

> Ron and Draco

Yes, quite similar.  They might have been decent friends, had Harry
not been  in their year.

> McGonagall, Snape, and Dumbledore

All three tough, competant, and good  in their own way.

> McGonagall and Trelawney

Both try to draw out the students and grow them in their skills.  

> McGonagall and Hermione

Rules RULES! 

> Crouch Sr. and Ludo Bagman

Haven't seen enough of either.

> Sirius and Snape

Too much alike to like each other.

> Lily and Hermione

Hermione would take a bullet for Harry, and might have to.

> Snape and James

Too much alike to like each other.

> Ginny and Lily

Haven't seen enough of either.

> Snape and Lupin

Might have gotten along, but for the Prank.

> Dudley and Draco

I imagine this scene at platform 9.75:
Lucius:  Hello, you must be the Dursley boy.  My son Draco says he's
heard
some good things about you.
Dudley: What, from Harry?  He hates me.
Lucius: But that's a good thing...





From pennylin at swbell.net  Tue Apr 30 18:47:51 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:47:51 -0500
Subject: Ron's prejudices; Good/Bad Characters; SHIP (Hermione at the QWC)
References: <aaih3m+t2ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b901c1f077$94666ec0$4df44041@default>

No: HPFGUIDX 38328

Hi --

Jenny from Ravenclaw originally said (this was misattributed as my quote by someone else later, but this was Jenny's original thought):

<<<Ron is easily influenced by others.  IOW, he is rather weak.  The fact 
that he cannot fight the Imperius Curse is evidence of that to me.>>>

Jo serenadust said:

<<<How is this an example of Ron's weakness? In GoF it states very 
clearly that "*not one* of them seemed to be able to fight off the  
curse" in the DADA class.  That would, of course, include Hermione.>>>

Well, in the first mention of Imperius Curse (The Beuxbatons & Durmstrang chapter), actually it's *inferred* that Hermione couldn't shake it off either, but her name isn't mentioned at all.  I agree she probably can't, but I note that her name isn't mentioned (though Neville, Dean and Lavender are mentioned).  And, in that instance, Ron is said to have had "much more difficulty than Harry."  Well, true enough that since Harry is the only one who can throw it off entirely, this isn't necessarily as horrible as all that.  BUT, I agree with Jenny that it just sticks out like a red flag to me.  It might end up being a red herring or just a throw-away reference .... but it strikes me that Ron's susceptibility to Imperius is slightly highlighted.  He also has had trouble shaking off the effects of charms IIRC.  It just seems like one of those subtle little foreshadowing hints that JKR is so fond of inserting OR maybe we've all just had too much time since the last book to make mountains out of molehills.  :--)

Jenny continues:

> When it comes to prejudices, I feel that somewhere along the line when Ron 
was much younger, he heard some arguments against werewolves and 
giants 
> (or maybe he simply heard what nearly everyone around him was 
saying) 
> and took those comments for fact without thinking them through for 
> himself.  Ron isn't one to question and is much more likely 
to "judge 
> a book by its cover", so to speak.  He's not strong enough to 
stand up 
> alone and express his views the way Hermione does. 

Jo serenadust argued:

<<<Ron not *strong* enough to stand up and express his views?  Are we 
reading the same books? <g> He's the one who stands up to Snape on 
Hermione's behalf, he's the one who was going to stand up to Fudge 
(his dad's boss!) on behalf of Buckbeak if Hermione hadn't stopped 
him.>>>>>>

I suspect that Jenny might have been referring more to Ron's tendency to throw out theories without alot of thought or logic going into the mix-master.  It seems to me that Ron has become increasingly insecure as the series progresses, and his tendency to just blurt something out has become more pronounced.    

I would like to clarify *yet again* that I don't think Ron is evil.  I don't think Ron will "turn" evil.  I don't think my favorite love-triangle theory (FITD) requires that Ron be evil or dead.  I *do* think Ron is susceptible to manipulation, and even though the other characters are also potential candidates for manipulation by the DEs, I think Ron is more at risk for this than others.  I think it's thus possible for him to *unwittingly* betray Harry.  I must say that I don't understand why when someone raises any of Ron's faults or questions his motivations at all, that person is immediately accused of being a member of the Evil!Ron camp.  It really ought to be possible to acknowledge that Ron is as flawed as any of the other characters; one ought not to have to choose between Perfect!Ron (who would never intentionally or unintentionally betray Harry because he's *perfect*) or Evil!Ron.  Can I take a middle ground without lots of tomatoes being thrown my way?  Please.  

I don't think Ron is a bad person, though I do say that I have liked him less & less as the series progresses.  His faults have become more pronounced in my interpretation, whereas Hermione's faults seem to be improving as the series progresses.  But, yes, it would be boring indeed if all the characters were pure white or pure black.  It is the faults, ambiguities & gray areas that make it all the more interesting ... which leads me into this week's discussions of Good/Evil:   

I don't think I can at this point add much to the excellent points made by Dave, Eloise, Gwen and others, though I did have to comment on this:

Dave: <<<<<<<<<<Another pairing is Sirius with his own animagus form. (I find it hard 
to understand why this only works for me with him, and not with 
James, Peter, Miverva or Rita.  Certainly Prongs represents 
continuity not variability, as he is Harry's Patronus.)  It is in his 
name: Sirius Black.  Sirius is the brightest (and most twinkling in 
northern latitudes) star in the sky, so his name is a pairing of 
opposites: the dark star.  His ability to flip between man and dog 
comes across to me as an indication of a fundamental instability, the 
see-sawing between higher and lower, the base nature ever reaching up 
to trip up and shock the civilised man just when he thinks he has 
made it.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wow!  I just had to throw this in for a brief comment.  This is really intriguing; I hope Dicey (authoring an essay on our collective thoughts on Sirius) is paying attention.  Very perceptive analysis, Dave.  I'd never noted that his name pairs opposites really.  

Barb wrote a lengthy analysis of the well-rounded morally ambiguous nature of the "good" characters, contrasted against the relatively flat one-dimensional "bad" characters:  

<<<<Five "bad" people who were masquerading as "good" people did things 
that were sometimes not so bad until their true nature was revealed:

Quirrell
Pettigrew
Crouch, Sr.
Crouch, Jr.
Bagman>>>>>>

I note that I suspect Pettigrew is a prime candidate for a character who will get more depth in future books, particularly if he does indeed repay his debt to Harry.  

I too would like to see less flatness overall though with respect to the "bad guys."  I agree with Dave that Draco needs depth as much or more than he needs "redemption."  I think it *is* his flatness that bothers so many of us really.  

Rohit, arguing against his own ship (H/H), said:

<<<<1)The whole debate about seating arragements at the Quidditch 
World Cup is moot.  Hermione only pulls Harry back into his seat 
because he was the only one standing up--we get not a single 
indication that Ron was standing up, and indeed, the fact that Mr. 
Weasley *leaned over* to stop Ron from tearing the shamrocks 
on his hat indicates that he was, in all likelihood, sitting down.  
Combined with the seating chart argument, though, this is 
almost incontrovertible proof that Hermione was not showing a 
preference for either of the two boys when she pulled Harry back 
into his seat.  <snip> Indeed, hermione in general seems to be annoyed 
with both boys when they show interest in girls solely based on 
attractiveness...>>>>>

*That's* the point!  Her annoyance with Ron's reaction to Fleur, IMO, is not because she has romantic interest in Ron.  It's just more evidence that she's annoyed when *either* of her best friends succumbs to the admittedly-normal-for-14-yr-old-boys impulse to be attracted to a girl based on her appearance.  The fact that she shows annoyance with Harry to the point of pulling him back into his seat, with an "Honestly!" thrown in for good measure, is quite good evidence that her later reactions to Fleur *might not* be motivated by jealousy due to romantic interest in Ron.  If they *are* motivated by romantic interest in Ron, how do you explain her reaction to Harry at the QWC after all?  Yeah.  Exactly.  <g>

Penny



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr 30 19:32:16 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 19:32:16 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
In-Reply-To: <aajqjk+hbq4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aamrg0+sdg0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38329

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> This week's question from the Phil Nel database...
> 
>  Why has Rowling drawn connections between Voldemort and Harry?  In
> linking these characters so closely, is she suggesting some kinship
> between opposites?  Are good and evil bound closely together?  Can 
> you think of other characters in the series who, though they appear 
> to be opposites, are in fact more alike than we initially suspect?

I think the Harry-Voldemort similarities are there to highlight the
theme of choices being the deciding factor that makes people who they
are.  Harry and Tom Riddle started at very similar points, but went in
totally different directions.  This serves both to point out Harry's
fundamental decency, and to establish that Voldemort wasn't just a
victim of circumstances.

> Voldemort personified evil, that is clear. We have never seen him, 
> in any of his incarnations, do anything that could be deemed 
> deliberately good or helpful (although an argument can be made that 
> he was inadvertently helpful to the students of Hogwarts back in the 
> 40s, when he managed to get Aragog out of the castle).
> 
> Have we, however, met no character who thoroughly personified the 
> forces of good?

It seems to me that evil, in the HP universe, is represented by
rejection of moral conflict.  "No good or evil, only power and those
too weak to wield it."  For people like Voldemort, Lucius, and Draco
(who may not be evil yet, but is rapidly heading in that direction),
the only relevant questions about a prospective course of action are
"what's in it for me?" and "can I get away with it?"  The question "is
this the right thing to do?" is irrelevant to them.  This absence of
conflict makes HP evil simplistic enough that a single character like
Voldemort can personify it.

Good, on the other hand, is all about facing moral conflict head-on. 
It's about examining situations to figure out what the right (and not
the easy) thing to do is, and then doing it.  This opens all sorts of
possibilities for conflicts and mistakes.  A good person can fail to
figure out what the right thing to do is; or they can figure it out
but failt to do it because it's too difficult.  Or several good people
can disagree on what the right thing is.  Being good is complicated
undertaking -- too complicated for a single person to personify it. 
Dumbledore probably comes closest, but he's made his share of
mistakes.  (For example, I believe that his handling of the Prank and
its aftermath was a case of failing to figure out the right course of
action.  And so was his public humiliation of Slytherin House at the
end of PS/SS)

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From megalynn44 at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 30 19:23:30 2002
From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Meghan Stancil)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:23:30 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's prejudices; Good/Bad Characters; SHIP (Hermione
 at the QWC)
Message-ID: <F94skqC5EtrUVYKkpLT000060a0@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38330


Penny wrote
>Well, in the first mention of Imperius Curse (The Beuxbatons & Durmstrang 
>chapter), actually it's *inferred* that Hermione couldn't shake it off 
>either, but her name isn't mentioned at all.  I agree she probably can't, 
>but I note that her name isn't mentioned (though Neville, Dean and Lavender 
>are mentioned).  And, in that instance, Ron is said to have had "much more 
>difficulty than Harry."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I really don't think that's a sign that he is weak. I think it might be a 
clue that Aurther was once under the Imperius curse. Maybe the Weasley's are 
rather suseptable. In the chapter where Moody shows the Unforgivable Curses 
Ron is the one who mentions the Imperius and Moody says something to the 
effect of, you would know that one. That might also explain the gap in 
Weasley children.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com





From merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 30 19:18:39 2002
From: merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com (sherlock_2040)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 19:18:39 -0000
Subject: Thought about Snape and James Potter's relationship
Message-ID: <aamqmf+jq2q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38332

I'm lazy and feeling too tired to walk up to the stairs to my room, 
so I can't say which book the quote is from.

In one of the books (possibly the third) Dumbledore describes James 
Potter's relationship with Snape as similar to Harry's relationship 
with Draco Malfoy. Now, he doesn't state which way *round* he meant 
this - could it possibly be that James Potter and his gang were being 
equalled to Draco Malfoy? 

I don't agree with the assumption that James Potter and Sirius Black 
were blameless and more or less perfect (I get the impression that 
perhaps Peter and Remus were on the outside of this a little bit.) 
I'm not comparing Snape to Harry, but Harry too sometimes provokes 
Draco into reacting as well as the other way round. 

Just a thought.

Steph





From jferer at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 30 20:09:35 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:09:35 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
In-Reply-To: <aamrg0+sdg0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aamtlv+go3q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38333

Marina:"It seems to me that evil, in the HP universe, is represented 
by rejection of moral conflict.  "No good or evil, only power and 
those too weak to wield it."  For people like Voldemort, Lucius, and 
Draco (who may not be evil yet, but is rapidly heading in that 
direction), the only relevant questions about a prospective course of 
action are "what's in it for me?" and "can I get away with it?"  The 
question "is this the right thing to do?" is irrelevant to them."

You have painted a good picture of sociopathy, which is what Voldemort 
 *and* Lucius exemplify, although Lucius is much better at it. The 
lack of empathy and restraints make it possible to treat all others as 
objects, things to be manipulated, destroyed, or excruciated at will. 
The sociopath is blind to the sufferings of others compared to his 
desire.

My first reaction to your "...and Draco (who may not be evil yet, but 
is rapidly heading in that direction)..." was, "what exactly are you 
waiting for?", but I don't think Draco *is* a sociopath at this point. 
 He does care for his mother, at least, and seemingly his father, so 
some human feeling survives (but not much, mind).

Marina:"Being good is complicated undertaking -- too complicated for a 
single person to personify it. Dumbledore probably comes closest, but 
he's made his share of mistakes.  (For example, I believe that his 
handling of the Prank and its aftermath was a case of failing to 
figure out the right course  of action.  And so was his public 
humiliation of Slytherin House at the end of PS/SS)"

I can't agree that his "public humiliation" of Slytherin was a mistake 
or a moral failing at all. It was just, as the Trio had certainly done 
something extraordinary earing their House merit and glory.




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr 30 20:13:47 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:13:47 -0000
Subject: Thought about Snape and James Potter's relationship
In-Reply-To: <aamqmf+jq2q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aamttr+ltv9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38334

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sherlock_2040" <merlyn_dawson at h...> wrote:

> In one of the books (possibly the third) Dumbledore describes James 
> Potter's relationship with Snape as similar to Harry's relationship 
> with Draco Malfoy. 

I believe it's in the very first book, actually.

> Now, he doesn't state which way *round* he meant 
> this - could it possibly be that James Potter and his gang were
being 
> equalled to Draco Malfoy? 

I wouldn't go that far -- I think Dumbledore was equating situations,
rather than individuals -- but I agree that James and Sirius were
probably not entirely blameless in their conflict with Snape.  I don't
think they were awful people or anything; I believe they were both
decent kids.  And I have no doubt that adolescent Snape was a
thoroughly unpleasant git. But we know Sirius has his share of
character flaws, and it stands to reason that James did, too.  And I
don't know, maybe it's my own adolescent traumas coming through, but
to me, the small amount we've been told about the Snape-Marauders
conflict looks an awful lot like a couple of popular jocks picking on
the geeky loser.  Which bugs me, even if the geeky loser may have done
something to deserve it. :-)


> I'm not comparing Snape to Harry, but Harry too sometimes provokes 
> Draco into reacting as well as the other way round. 

Do you have any examples of that?  I don't have the books with me
here, either, and I can't recall any instances when Harry deliberately
provoked Draco at a time when Draco was just leaving well enough
alone.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Apr 30 20:29:57 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
In-Reply-To: <aamtlv+go3q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020430202957.21260.qmail@web9503.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38335


--- jferer <jferer at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I can't agree that his "public humiliation" of
> Slytherin was a mistake 
> or a moral failing at all. It was just, as the Trio
> had certainly done 
> something extraordinary earing their House merit and
> glory.

They did do something extraordinary - as did Neville
:) - but Dumbledore had known that for days.
Presumably, the banners hadn't even been up at mid-day
that day. Why couldn't he have allocated the points
beforehand? 

Of course, it was because it would've had less
dramatic impact, and I tend to disregard this as
something telling about Dumbledore simply because
we're reading novels which have certain things done
only for dramatic purpose, and other things not done
simply for characterisation. But it was really an
unnecessary thing to do to the Slytherins - none of
*them* had done anything wrong in the events which
allowed Harry to rescue the stone.

heidi

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com



From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr 30 20:31:21 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:31:21 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
In-Reply-To: <aamtlv+go3q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aamuup+840l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38336

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" <jferer at y...> wrote:

> Marina:"Being good is complicated undertaking -- too complicated for
a 
> single person to personify it. Dumbledore probably comes closest,
but 
> he's made his share of mistakes.  (For example, I believe that his 
> handling of the Prank and its aftermath was a case of failing to 
> figure out the right course  of action.  And so was his public 
> humiliation of Slytherin House at the end of PS/SS)"
> 
> I can't agree that his "public humiliation" of Slytherin was a
mistake 
> or a moral failing at all. It was just, as the Trio had certainly
done 
> something extraordinary earing their House merit and glory.

Oh, I have no objection to Dumbledore giving the points to Neville and
the Trio, and giving the House Cup to Gryffindor.  They certainly
earned it.  But I maintain that he should've awarded the points and
notified the winners before the feast started.  Telling the Slytherins
that they won, decorating the Great Hall in their colors, allowing
them to start celebrating in front of the whole school, and then
standing up and going "Psych! You lose!" was, IMO, deeply wrong.  I'm
sure that Dumbledore didn't do it to be meanspirited, but that's how
it came across to me.  

I may also prove extremely counterproductive in the long run.  Here
are a bunch of children who are already predisposed to be ambitious
and ruthless, who are already alienated from the rest of the school,
and who in many cases are already being pushed toward the Dark Side by
their ex-DE families.  Now the Light Side's main representative pulls
this sort of mean trick on them (and we know the Slytherins would see
it as a mean trick even though it wasn't).  Not exactly the best way
to demonstrate to these kids that evil isn't where it's at.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From jferer at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 30 20:32:28 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:32:28 -0000
Subject: Bad characters
In-Reply-To: <aamrrq+jho2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aamv0s+1sf5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38337

Cygnus, replying to Barb:"Very interesting, and I agree with your 
basic premise that JKR's 'good' characters are more rounded and real 
than her bad ones."

I don't agree. JKR gives us a number of evil's faces, and exemplars of 
what she clearly sees as the great evils and sicknesses:

Out-and-out sociopathy: Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy
Prejudice and self-righteousness: the Dursleys
Gluttony: Dudley Dursley
Cowardice and self-absorption: Gilderoy Lockhart
Moral cowardice: Fudge
Coldness: Crouch Sr.
Schizophrenia: Crouch Jr.
Conflict/Redemption/Jealousy/Rage: Snape

Others *are* less clear: Pettigrew and Quirrell (Pettigrew, seeking to 
pump up his low self-esteem by betraying his friends (see "Freddy 
Corleone") or Quirrell, who flirted with evil and found himself 
trapped. Karkaroff, who knows?

Where else in literature for young people are young readers get a more 
sophisticated view of good and evil?




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Tue Apr 30 20:45:53 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:45:53 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's prejudices;
In-Reply-To: <00b901c1f077$94666ec0$4df44041@default>
References: <aaih3m+t2ta@eGroups.com> <00b901c1f077$94666ec0$4df44041@default>
Message-ID: <7583559520.20020430134553@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 38338



Hi,

Tuesday, April 30, 2002, 11:47:51 AM, Penny wrote:

> one ought not to
> have to choose between Perfect!Ron (who would never intentionally or
> unintentionally betray Harry because he's *perfect*) or Evil!Ron.  Can I
> take a middle ground without lots of tomatoes being thrown my way? 
> Please.  

I dunno <g>.

I see the same things happening with pretty much every character
(especially Hermione).

Someone will point out a flaw, and others jump to the defense
<g>.

And Ron seems to have many "enemies" (kidding).
My almost automatic response is to help out the underdog,
and I really like Ron's normalcy.
Not everyone can be talented or an excellent student and I
truly hope, JKR won't throw Ron to the wolves further down
the line.

Honestly, I realize Ron has faults, but in some posts he
is made out to be the one who's so flawed and weak, there'll
almost be go choice but for him to go dark or be used against Harry.

While this might happen, I'd actually find it more
interesting if, for example, Hermione were the one who
succumbed (temporarily).

Not quite so obvious and more angsty, imo.

Or, as somebody else (Laura) suggested, maybe Harry getting
so caught up in revenge, that he forgets the important
things.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Apr 30 21:18:18 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:18:18 -0000
Subject: Bad characters
In-Reply-To: <aamv0s+1sf5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aan1mq+v2i8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38339

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" <jferer at y...> wrote:
> Cygnus, replying to Barb:"Very interesting, and I agree with your 
> basic premise that JKR's 'good' characters are more rounded and real 
> than her bad ones."
> 
> I don't agree. JKR gives us a number of evil's faces, and exemplars
of 
> what she clearly sees as the great evils and sicknesses:
> 
> Out-and-out sociopathy: Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy
> Prejudice and self-righteousness: the Dursleys
> Gluttony: Dudley Dursley
> Cowardice and self-absorption: Gilderoy Lockhart
> Moral cowardice: Fudge
> Coldness: Crouch Sr.
> Schizophrenia: Crouch Jr.
> Conflict/Redemption/Jealousy/Rage: Snape

But with the exception of Snape and, to a lesser degree, Crouch Sr.,
how many of these are really complex characters?  How many of them
engage in any moral conflict, or show significant good traits to
balance out the bad? The Dursleys, Lockhart and Fudge are basically
caricatures.  Voldemort is your standard Evil Overlord, and Lucius is
your standard Snotty Aristocrat archetype.  And Crouch Jr. is a couple
of monkeys short of a barrel.  Now, I find all these characters to be
great fun to read about; but not necessarily because of their
complexity.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From alina at distantplace.net  Tue Apr 30 21:37:26 2002
From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:37:26 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thought about Snape and James Potter's relationship
References: <aamqmf+jq2q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005e01c1f08f$398b3ae0$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38340

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sherlock_2040 
  Now, he doesn't state which way *round* he meant 
  this - could it possibly be that James Potter and his gang were being 
  equalled to Draco Malfoy? 


Personally, I think he's equating all four of them on the same level. "Young boys trying to trip each other up and prove that each is better than the other". Neither Draco nor Snape are completely evil nor James and Harry completely good. They're all just trying to prove their point and in their teenage years how else do you expect kids to act? Dumbledore being old and wise is condescendingly looking down upon all the youngsters. 

Alina of Distant Place
http://www.distantplace.net/
"I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/2002


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 30 22:11:17 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:11:17 -0000
Subject: Bad characters
In-Reply-To: <aan1mq+v2i8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aan4q5+knar@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38341

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" <jferer at y...> wrote:
> > Cygnus, replying to Barb:"Very interesting, and I agree with 
> > your basic premise that JKR's 'good' characters are more rounded 
> > and real than her bad ones."
> > 
> > I don't agree. JKR gives us a number of evil's faces, and 
> > exemplars of what she clearly sees as the great evils and 
> > sicknesses:
> > 
> > Out-and-out sociopathy: Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy
> > Prejudice and self-righteousness: the Dursleys
> > Gluttony: Dudley Dursley
> > Cowardice and self-absorption: Gilderoy Lockhart
> > Moral cowardice: Fudge
> > Coldness: Crouch Sr.
> > Schizophrenia: Crouch Jr.
> > Conflict/Redemption/Jealousy/Rage: Snape
> 
> But with the exception of Snape and, to a lesser degree, Crouch 
> Sr., how many of these are really complex characters?  How many of 
> them engage in any moral conflict, or show significant good traits 
> to balance out the bad? The Dursleys, Lockhart and Fudge are 
> basically caricatures.  Voldemort is your standard Evil Overlord, 
> and Lucius is your standard Snotty Aristocrat archetype.  And 
> Crouch Jr. is a couple of monkeys short of a barrel.  Now, I find 
> all these characters to be great fun to read about; but not 
> necessarily because of their complexity.

That was my point precisely.  I was not trying to classify "types" 
of "bad" characters.  The folks I term "bad" characters are people 
we've never known to do ANY good at all.  I still contend that 
Crouch, Sr. has never done anything good without an ulterior 
motive.  He put his son away even with inadequate evidence for the 
sake of his career (even though this did turn out to be the right 
thing to do).  He engineered the switch between his wife and son, 
which was categorically the WRONG thing to do and cannot therefore 
count as a good act.  He can't even treat Percy Weasley civilly.  
I'm not trying to say there aren't degrees of evil; there are.  But 
the problem with all of these characters, no matter their degree of 
evil (and it's true that I neglected to include Lockhart and Skeeter-
-they definitely fit the bill) is that they have absolutely no 
redeeming qualities.  None.  There is nothing nice that can be said 
about them.  This is not true of Snape, or Sirius or Lupin.  Even 
Ron-bashers must admit that he has his redeeming qualities. <g>

It is true that the Dursleys are caricatures; but as far as that 
goes, ALL of these unredeemable people are caricatures.  That 
includes Draco, the caricature of the bully.  He's the wizarding 
world version, just as Dudley is the Muggle world version.  He has 
different ammunition in his arsenal than Dudley, but they're kindred 
spirits, and there's absolutely nothing nice that could be said 
about either one of them at this point.  I just wish JKR could have 
found a way to create villains--from the merely annoying Lockhart to 
the archvillain Voldemort himself--who seemed more real and less two-
dimensional.  The good characters are generally well-rounded and 
realistic.  Clearly she's able to do it.  It may have been a 
conscious choice to avoid making any of the major or minor villains 
sympathetic; I don't know.  I suppose I'm just saying that that 
choice saddens me, as I think the texture of the books could be even 
richer for more depth in these portrayals.

--Barb





From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 30 22:48:06 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:48:06 -0000
Subject: Fourth Man Variants.
Message-ID: <aan6v6+mirg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38342

>Cindy (thinking there ought to be even more Fourth Man variants out 
>there)

Well, variety * is* the spice of life, isn't it?


Charis Julia nimbly whips out a box of Berty Bott's Every Flavour 
Beans from her robes and offers them over to Cindy. "Watch out for 
the ochre ones", she warns. "They're yucky!" Cindy, suspecting Charis 
is meanly hogging all the best beans, promptly digs her fist deep 
into the packet scrounging desperately. "A?ha!" Her hand emerges 
holding a dirty--yellow blob.

"Urg! What is that!"


Do you really want to know? You Sure? Right. But don't say I didn't 
warn you.


********************

Fourth Man With Serious Perversion.


1) I am most ashamed to admit that this is in fact the first Fourth 
Man variant that popped into my mind as soon as I read Cindy's 
request. Pop! Just like that! <shakes head woefully but proceeds with 
presentation nonetheless> In FMWSP Avery is in fact a real sicko with 
a twisted appetite for Cruciatus Blasts. You know. . . pain and 
pleasure are all the same and all that. . . In the graveyard he put 
himself forward actually * hoping* for a stint of Crucio. He, err, * 
likes* it. So. . . err, yes. Right. Well. I actually prefer to 
pretend that I didn't really ever even * hear* of this suggestion, 
let alone make it up, so, err, let's just move on, shall we? Ah, no, 
hang on a minute. Can't. Not done yet. One more possibility to 
examine (if a job's worth doing it's worth doing well):


2)Fourth Man In Cruciatus Contest:


The Death Eaters, being, as Ron astutely observes, * all* total 
sickos, * all* have a thing for the Cruciatus Curse. And they're in a 
competition, wouldn't you know. To see who can collect the most zaps. 
Real exciting game. Winner gets to sacrifice limbs to Evil Overlord. 
Pettigrew won in the last round, but Avery's * determined* to get a 
head start this time.


3) Suicidal Fourth Man:


(For best results add Fourth Man With SHIP, FM With Remorse or FM 
With Innocence. Also very interesting when combined with Fourth Man, 
With Slashy SHIP ?see below)


Avery is, for reasons of his own, incredibly miserable. Forlorn. 
Despondent. * Morbid*. Being a total SYCOPHANT however he just 
doesn't have the guts to do away with himself unaided. Then Voldemort 
trots up and is rebirthed and it's the golden opportunity Avery's 
been waiting for. He flings himself at his Master's feet * hoping* 
for AK. But Voldemort's smarter than that, see. (yes,yes, I know. 
This is the weak part of this suggestion, but just use your 
imagination, ok?) He knows Avery is just begging to be bumped off. 
But he's not about to give him what he wants, is he?. So he goes for 
Crucio instead. 


4) Fourth Man, With Slashy SHIP:


Catlady should like this one `cos it makes Snape gay. And he and 
Avery, you see, they kinda had a thing going on together. Since way 
back. Hogwarts days. But then, as if from nowhere (Nowhere!) , Snape 
gets all these weird good v. bad ideas into his head. He dumps the 
Death Eaters, dumps Avery and starts, err, hanging out with 
Dumbledore instead. Poor Pitiful Avery is left Fondling Pictures Of 
Snape While Shivering Alone In Mother's Basement. When Voldemort's 
rebirthed he turns Suicidal. (see above)

5) Fourth Man, With Teenybopper Crush:


Avery still gay, but this time has a thing for, err, Voldemort. All 
very tragic and unrequited naturally because Voldemort wouldn't know 
Love if it collapsed at his feet in a writhing, shrieking * mess*. 
But Avery doesn't mind. He loves his Voldy regardless. And that's why 
he so submisively puts up with the Cruciatus (isn't it obvious?). He 
knows how much the Dark Lord enjoys the screaming. And anyway Avery 
suspects that after 13 years his iccle darkeykins's Cruciatus skills 
might not be quite up to scratch. So Avery's looking out for him, see.


6) Fourth Man, With Relief: 


After Voldemort's fall Avery, claiming Imperius, switched sides. 
Intent on convincing everyone of his innocence he emerged himself 
deep in his role. Way deep. So very deep in fact that he actually 
started * thinking*. Going over his wrongdoings. And we all know what 
happened then, don't we, Charis nods knowwlingly to supporters of 
Remorse. He felt * guilty*. And he didn't like that feeling, no not 
one little bit. So, when Voldemort returned, touching his Dark Mark 
and * forcing* him to return, Avery is actually * relieved*. Now he 
can go back to doing bad things without uncomfortable conscience?
related repercussions. The Cruciatus was an expression of his 
gratitude to Voldemert for this salvation. And a way to vent his 
feelings too. You know. Let off loose energy.



7) Backstabbing Fourth Man:


Now. How do you think the Longbottom's Cruciators were caught, huh? 
Ahhh, that's right. Clever Grownup. Got it in one. Avery pulled a 
Pettigrew. He turned them in. That's how he got off light, you 
understand. Cut a deal with the Ministry.


8) Fourth Man As Seer:


Now, you might not have noticed yet at this point in the story and if 
so that would be perfectly understandable, but Avery most * 
evidently* possesses the Gift. In a big way.I mean, there's just no 
stopping him. (you hadn't noticed?) He can penetrate through the 
veiled Mysteries of the Future like * that* <Charis snaps fingers> 
So, you see, he * knows*. He's already * seen* it all. In his crystal 
ball you realize. He's not really an Abject Neurotic at all, oh my 
goodness no! Not really. Not by a long shot. That's just our ignorant 
misconception. What he's * really* doing in the graveyard, see, is 
Answering the Beckoning of Fate. That's why he gives in so easily. 
He's playing along, right. The fates have informed him that his 
chances of resisting are * nil* and he just wants it all over as 
quickly as possible. Same goes for the Trial: Knows there's no 
possibility of acquaintance, but it doesn't worry him too much. 
Through the Noble Arts of Divination Avery has Seen his release in 
the near future Very Clearly. Besides, he's still too woozy for 
Dramatic Declarations from his last Revelation. Let the Mundane Minds 
shoot their mouths off.


I kinda like this one. :--)



So there you go. Eight brand new Fourth Man variants For You To Enjoy 
And Collect. And feel free to pick n' mix too if you wish. I would 
note however that personally, I'm standing strong by In Over His Head 
Fourth Man. He makes better sense.

Charis Julia, With Indigestion.

P.S. My sincere apologies to the respected generator of the admirable 
Fourth Man Theory, which definitely does not deserve such ridicule. I 
couldn't resist.:--)





From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 30 22:51:29 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:51:29 -0000
Subject: Edge/Evilness Compatibility
Message-ID: <aan75h+ht3b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38343

Laura Huntley wrote:


>Charis Julia again:
>>Hmmm, can one actually have Edge and be Evil 
>>simultaneously? Wouldn't the one cancel the 
>>other out? Dunno. 
>
>Oh, of course! *pauses* Well, I suppose it depends on your 
definition of "Edge". 
>I mean, there can certainly be Evilness without Edge *and* Edge 
without
>Evilness...but I think that they could coexist as well.
>


Still not fully convinced. <shrugs> Guess it really does depend on 
your definition of Edge. Is there a single, established, universally 
accepted interpretation of Edge we could look up anywhere or is it's 
understanding purely subjective, allowing each individual license to 
determine it as they will? Huh. Wouldn't know.


But see, what my problem is, is this: a long time ago, while 
discussing Edge, kimberly expressively illustrated Lupin as an only?
just?under?control?volcano and this is also how I tend to think of 
him. And, see, the thing is, once a volcano's actually gone and * 
erupted*, well, nobody's really going to be sitting around worrying 
if it * will*, are they? They're all just too busy running.


And that's just it.


Lupin is of course the supreme example of Edge and, well, Lupin, he's 
* nice* really, isn't he? Or should be. Or would be. If.


But (thankfully) he's not. He's got Edge. <Yay, Edge!> And Edge, 
always for me , is just that: Something That Is Not Quite Right. 
Something that makes you say, "Yes, well, I like him and all, 
but. . . Hmmmm. . ." Something you just can't pin?point, but is 
indubitably, beyond a shadow of a doubt, unmistakably * there*. But 
you Just Can't Be Sure.


And of course, in this sense, Edge really is incompatible with 
Evilness. Because once you've really, actually taken the leap and 
gone * over*, then there is no Edge. You' ve passed the Edge. Off it. 
You're smack?bam at the bottom of the bloomin' cliff! Once you're 
Evil, there's nothing there anymore for people to wonder about. Now, 
they * can* Be Sure, they * can* pin?point it. You've made it crystal 
clear: Not only is Something Not Quite Right, but in fact* 
Everything* is spectacularly Very, Very * Wrong*.


Do you see what I'm getting at?


In this sense I can't accept that Mrs Lestrange has Edge. She's 
certainly got something of course, you're right. But I'm just not 
buying Edge.


What has she got? Err. . . oooh. . . toughie. Mrs Lestrange, well, 
she kinda steals the show, doesn't she? I mean there's poor old Barty 
frantically giving the best performance of his life and is anyone 
desperately pairing him off with every eligible witch? No, they're 
all too preoccupied with Flo, whose whole repertoire consists of 
hardly four (* four*!) flimsy lines, for Pete's sake! I mean it's 
downright insulting, it is!


Mrs Lestrange has. . . she has. . . well, in greek I'd say she has * 
tipos*, but I honestly have no idea how to translate that. Pizzazz? 
Spark? Flare? Personality? Ahhh, I give up. What Mrs Lestrange has is 
that rare quality of ultimate attractiveness. She's the kind of 
person who when they walk into a room, everybody just * knows* 
they're there. She's the kind of person you just * don't* forget. You 
can't. Even if you want to. (though, must point out, the occasional 
Cruciatus zap does help a * great * deal in this direction. . .)


Mrs Lestrange is just Dead Sexy.


Laura again:


>Crouch Jr., for instance,
>is sort of Edgy to me...however Wormtail wouldn't know Edge if it 
striped naked
>and danced the Macarena for him. Conversely, Lupin is the classic 
example of
>Edge, while Arthur Weasley hasn't got it at all.


Ooooh, you think Barty Jr. had Edge, huh? Humph. Bother. Got me 
there. . . Boy. Stumped. Huh.


Now, you see, I can't properly deny that Moody/Crouch * does* have 
Edge. All though GoF you're wondering about him: "Is he Bad? I think 
he's Bad. He must be Bad. He's * acts* Bad. Errr, but that could just 
be his style. And he * is* Dumbledore's friend. And surely Seriously 
Evil Wizards can't very well go around bouncing ferret?pupils off the 
ceilings, can they? I mean, what a give?away! Nah, he's Good. He must 
be Good. He * acts* Good. But then again. . ."


So, yeah, for most of the book little Barty does in fact give a 
admirable show of Edge. But nevertheless, I'm not really so sure this 
is really his own inherent charactaristic as opposed to something 
simply __acquired__ by dint of playing--acting. Something that 
somehow came with the part, if you know what I mean. Or is even 
actually nothing more than an indication, a symptom, of it all * 
being* an act. Let's see if I can explain. . . errr. . . he's acting, 
right? He's not being himself. And though he is of course 
astoundingly brilliant at it, he can't pull it off completely. We 
still know that Something's Not Quite Right. We still * wonder*.


But the Not?Rightness, see, it doesn't actually * belong* to Barty. 
Not like it does to Lupin at least. Barty's just pretending. And so, 
when the shows up and he's revealed for what he truly is, whatever 
Edge he had disappears into thin air. With Lupin on the other hand, 
the effect is quite the reverse. Lupin Edge is actually * 
intensified* by the knowledge of his history.


I just think Barty forfeited all his Edge in favor of the Complete 
Loonybin look. That's all.


Moody. Now * he* might have Edge.


Charis Julia, who would desperately love to have some Edge, but is 
pretty sure she's prominently lacking in it. <sigh> Goodnight.





From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk  Tue Apr 30 22:56:41 2002
From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:56:41 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizarding World law
References: <aamf25+n979@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000f01c1f09a$4b1239c0$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 38344

Eloise wrote
>>Yeah. That bit's really confusing isn't it? I think she meant to 
write 'pass sentence' instead of 'pronounce judgment'. Crouch *does* <<

Ok, Im probably going to get shot down for this one, it almost being a one liner but... pass sentence/pronounce Judgement = exact same thing.  

If my brains working correctly (which it's probably not considering the time here) pass sentence=You are sentenced to do X punishment.  Pronounce Judgement is the same only its a case of You have been found guilty and will do X punishment.

Olly


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From doldra at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 30 20:45:51 2002
From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:45:51 -0000
Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)
In-Reply-To: <aamuup+840l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aamvpv+8roq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38345

--- "marinafrants" wrote:

> Oh, I have no objection to Dumbledore giving the points to Neville 
and
> the Trio, and giving the House Cup to Gryffindor.  They certainly
> earned it.  But I maintain that he should've awarded the points and
> notified the winners before the feast started.  Telling the 
Slytherins
> that they won, decorating the Great Hall in their colors, allowing
> them to start celebrating in front of the whole school, and then
> standing up and going "Psych! You lose!" was, IMO, deeply wrong.  
I'm
> sure that Dumbledore didn't do it to be meanspirited, but that's how
> it came across to me.  

Dumbledore's actions were rather biased and immature, but he's only 
human. I'm not justifying it at all and I agree that in the long-run 
it's going to be more serious; in terms of being good or bad, though, 
he's about as good as you can get. He might let himself be carried 
away sometimes by his excitement, but the students know he's 
dependable and that with him they're safe, even if they dislike him. 
Being good doesn't necessarily have to do with making the right 
decisions all the time either; I think it's more about doing what one 
thinks is morally best.

-Doldra





From doldra at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 30 20:59:39 2002
From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:59:39 -0000
Subject: Ron's prejudices;
In-Reply-To: <7583559520.20020430134553@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <aan0jr+77u6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38346

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

> 
> Honestly, I realize Ron has faults, but in some posts he
> is made out to be the one who's so flawed and weak, there'll
> almost be go choice but for him to go dark or be used against Harry.
> 
> While this might happen, I'd actually find it more
> interesting if, for example, Hermione were the one who
> succumbed (temporarily).
> 
> Not quite so obvious and more angsty, imo.
> 

I agree. The way things are going, the idea that Ron will go traitor 
seems to fit well. Throughout the series, he's had more and more 
character flaws piled up on him; next to Harry, who has his problems 
but nevertheless always seems to make the right choice, Ron looks 
like a -horrible- person, at least at first glance. His going evil 
looks inevitable. I'm hoping, though, that JKR won't choose that more 
obvious path. And hey--she's surprised us so many times before, 
what's to stop her from doing it again?
I also like the idea of Harry going at least partly evil...in my 
opinion, it would make him that much more interesting. :)

-Doldra





From merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 30 21:16:03 2002
From: merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com (sherlock_2040)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:16:03 -0000
Subject: Thought about Snape and James Potter's relationship
In-Reply-To: <aamttr+ltv9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <aan1ij+effl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38347

Re: Marina's reply

> I believe it's in the very first book, actually.

Probably was, sorry. 

> I wouldn't go that far -- I think Dumbledore was equating 
situations, rather than individuals 

Ah... That sounds more possible... 

>-- but I agree that James and Sirius were probably not entirely 
blameless in their conflict with Snape.  I don't think they were 
awful people or anything; I believe they were both decent kids.  

I believe that they were decent kids, and I agree that they can't 
have been awful people. I think J.K Rowling said in an 
interview/chat/thing that James Potter inherited a lot of money, and 
if he came from a maybe a rich family of pure bloods who had all been 
Gryffindor's he could have perhaps grown up with the idea that 
Slytherin's are bad and not really have helped in his judgement of 
Snape. Black maybe had a similar background, but not as rich. Snape 
strikes me as someone who probably came from a rich-ish background, 
but who's parents didn't know what to do with him - maybe a drunkard 
father/mother or something and Snape's knowledge of dark curse stems 
from him (protection from his drunken father/mother) or to impress 
them and make them take some notice of him. Snape was probably a 
decent kid in his own right.

>And I have no doubt that adolescent Snape was a thoroughly 
unpleasant git. But we know Sirius has his share of character flaws, 
and it stands to reason that James did, too.  

Agreed.

>And I don't know, maybe it's my own adolescent traumas coming 
through, but to me, the small amount we've been told about the Snape-
Marauders  conflict looks an awful lot like a couple of popular jocks 
picking on the geeky loser.  

Stikes me that way to. If Snape struggled with Transfiguration (a 
subject the Marauders found simple), then that would probably cause a 
lot of friction. Do you think it was mainly Sirius Black who led the 
jives at Snape, and James sort of joined in since his friend was 
doing it? Remus seems to be the sort of person who would semi-join 
in, and then apologise to the 'victim' once the others were out of 
earshot. Could it be Lily was kind to Snape? (Offered to help him 
with his Transfiguration and tried to stick up for him?) 

> Do you have any examples of that?  I don't have the books with me
here, either, and I can't recall any instances when Harry deliberately
provoked Draco at a time when Draco was just leaving well enough
alone.

Not really, it's been a while since I've actually read the books 
(currently reading the third one to my brother again), but I could be 
confusing some fanfiction events. I think it was more an impression I 
got, than actual events. I'll have to think, and flick through the 
books. Sorry if I've mistaken or confused anything, tends to happen.


Steph 
(who is feeling thoughtful [about how other peoples actions can have 
disasterous effects on other people] and a bit down since the baby 
died in Wycliffe :()





From silvercat at qnet.com  Tue Apr 30 23:05:04 2002
From: silvercat at qnet.com (Silvercat)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:05:04 -0700
Subject: Battle, Hogwarts' whereabouts, Dursleys, clothes
References: <10f.1031801c.29fc6578@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3CCF2320.EC8478C3@qnet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 38356

> "He certainly doesn't seem at all concerned about maintaining wizarding
> secrecy. IMO, his aim is all-out Muggle/Wizard war, with the hope of
> exterminating or enslaving every Muggle on earth."  -Pippin
> 
> This reminds me of The metal guy in X-Men, what is his name? He can control
> any metal I think, oh well I can't remember, but you know there are the
> mutants and regular people? Anyway, some mutants just wanted to destroy
> everyone who wasn't a mutant, I think.
> 
> "Ahketsi"

I think you mean Magneto.  And he controls the earth's magnetic field
(muuuuch more powerful.)  And yes, he wants all humans dead, or at least
to leave mutants alone.  And has a country to do it with.  Apocalypse on
the other hand doesn't *need* a country. (But Voldemort is much scarier
and less cliched in my opinion.)

Somebody mentioned that Parseltongues might be able to enlist the
dragons.  Nice thought, but if dragons speak parseltongue why didn't
Harry hear the mother dragon saying something in the second trial?  Was
it untranslateable?

Oh, I've found some more evidence for where Hogwarts is.  In FB (page 2
specifically) it says
"rumors that a colony of Acromantula has been established in Scotland
are ... confirmed by Harry Potter and Ron Weasley."  That's pretty darn
clear.

A thought about the Dursleys and Harry being protected by living with
relatives (ancient magic, wasn't it?):
The Dursleys are from Lily's side of the family, Lily who died
protecting Harry, which gave him protection against Voldy.  Mayhaps,
this protection extends from other people related to her as well -
meaning Petunia and Dudley.  And since even at school or in hiding Harry
is near Dudley, wouldn't that cover it?

Somebody said it was strange Voldy forgot about the protection thing (he
doesn't seem to have that great of a memory does he?), since probably
after all undoubtably somebody else threw themselves in front of an AK. 
I don't think it's too strange.  AK isn't used that often (except by the
DEs) and they probably hit mostly people by themselves (divide and
conquer works quite well you know), so it just never came up.

I think it's odd that the wizards have so much trouble with Muggle
clothes in GoF.  It seems like they mostly wear the same thing.  Mrs.
Weasley knits sweaters for her kids, the covers show Harry in jeans,
Hagrid wears a black overcoat, Neville's gran wears a dress and carries
a purse.  Doesn't sound that strange?  Yeah, a lot of them wear cloaks
most (all?) of the time, but at least the younger generations wear (to
us) normal clothes.
-- 
Silvercat / Phoenix - 

I seriously question the sanity of somebody who uses multiple
exclamation marks. 
_________________________
http://blackflame.topcities.com - Silvercat's Menagerie, a vast array of
mostly disconnected stuff





From lav at tut.by  Mon Apr 15 14:29:08 2002
From: lav at tut.by (Alexander)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:29:08 +0300
Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY (I think....): Possible Parallel, but who knows...
In-Reply-To: <abtiu3+elua@eGroups.com>
References: <abtiu3+elua@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8332793808.20020415172908@tut.by>

No: HPFGUIDX 38777

  Greetings!

> L. Terrell Gould, III wrote:

l> (...)

l>     Upon enjoying LotR a second time, a notion crossed my mind when 
l> reading the reason the Dark Lord (Sauron) survived. It was because his 
l> essence was trapped in the one ring, and he would only truly be gone 
l> when the ring was destroyed. Of course, being the avid HP fan that I 
l> am, I automatically shifted my thought to the other Dark Lord 
l> (Voldemort) for comparison. Had big, bad V stored away his essence in 
l> something before dieing at chubby infantile hands? Well, there's no 
l> canon for it being an object, but we do know a little bit of himself 
l> was left behind, in one Harry Potter.
l>     Ok, ok. Should I be implying that LV remained in etherial form 
l> because his essence was trapped in li'l HP?

l> (...)

  My last theory on this issue is that not only did he
remain alive due to Harry's body, but that Voldemort never
did lose power at all.

  Indeed, can you believe that fairy tale about a
one-year-old baby who somehow defeated the greatest evil
wizard of all times? I don't.

  Events of that day of Voldemort's downfall are so much
scrambled and uncertain that many speculations are possible.
But approximately a month ago I have come to an interesting
conclusion: if we do NOT trust everything Harry says (and we
assume the books are written mostly from Harry's words),
then a whole new picture appears.

  That is, if we question Harry's truthfulness. Not that I
say that Harry is a liar. Nope. I say that Harry is dead,
and it's Voldemort is Harry's body.

  Ever since I came to this idea, I have been enthralled by
it. It's really nice. It explains *everything*. Well, almost
everything. And events of books 1 to 4 start looking much
more interesting...

  Book 1. Voldemort, being in Harry's body, penetrates the
Hogwarts - the place he wouldn't dare to visit if he was in
his normal body. Trying to steal the Philosopher's Stone, he
lets two wizards suspect each other in evil intentions:
Snape and Quirrell. Both are wasting their time and energy
trying to prevent the other from stealing the Stone. At
last Harry/Voldemort confronts Quirrell in the Chamber and
kills him. He fails to get the stone, though - Dumbledore
arrives and he has to eat humble pie - for now.

  Book 2. A lot of diversions are made by Harry/Voldemort.
The result is general gain of Dumbledore's trust.

  Book 3. Sirius arrives. I DON'T believe this criminal to
be a nice man! Sirius is Death Eater for sure, and he came
to bow to his Lord. And I don't believe this werewolf as
well. Perhaps Snape is the only one who almost gets to know
the truth - but he is knocked out by Harry/Voldemort and two
poor boys who actually believe and like Harry (Voldemort was
always good in getting others' trust).

  Book 4. Voldemort sacrifices one of his Death Eaters
(namely, Crouch Jr), feeding him misinformation and
organising his eventual capture and death. I don't know how
much misinformation was in what Jeremy said to Dumbledore
under Veritaserum influence.

  There are still facts that don't fill the picture. But I
must say that official version has such facts in much larger
amounts! And what's more important, with this version we
have to believe much less unbelievable things (Voldemort's
downfall, werewolves goodness and so on).

  And last. This is all, of course, a joke. But a one I like
and will protect with all my strength.

Sincerely yours,
Alexander Lomski,
Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed,
always happy to throw weird ideas into community.