Barty Jr., Animagus HG, Flamel, James, lots o' Draco, Snape, etc.

[Amy Z]

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/