LONG -- Renovating TOADKEEPER (WAS FLIRTIAC ticket, renovating ToadKeeper)

[cindysphynx]

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)